Mir AIJAZ ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs Mir HMI AND 11 OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. When the case was called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent was present and noted that the petitioners' counsel had prior knowledge of the hearing date. The record showed that an earlier application for adjournment and for hearing at Karachi had been rejected by the Chief Justice. Furthermore, the petition had previously been adjourned on four occasions at the request of the petitioners' counsel. Finding no justification for a further adjournment in the continued absence of the petitioners or their counsel, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. Additionally, the Court noted that a separate reference lodged in the Court did not require a separate order, as the questions raised therein were governed by an earlier final judgment of the Court. Finally, a belated adjournment application received by post after the announcement of the dismissal order was held to be of no avail.
- Can a petition be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioners and their counsel fail to appear at the hearing?
- Whether an adjournment application received by post after the announcement of an order dismissing a case is maintainable?
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The case has been called out. None is present for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent is however, present. He states that the learned Advocate-on- Record and the learned counsel for the petitioners are aware of today's hearing. It is also apparent from their application for adjournment and hearing at Karachi, which was` rejected by H. C. J on 19- 11-1983 with the following order :- "As the availability of this particular Bench cannot be ensured at Karachi, it was, therefore, that this matter was ordered to be fixed here. Accordingly it will not be possible to adjourn the case which has already been listed for hearin4",.
2. Earlier too this petition was adjourned on for occasions on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not a fit case for adjournment particularly when none has appeared today, till 10 a. m. It is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. ' It is not necessary to pass any separate orders on the reference leeched in this Court. The questions raised therein have to be determined in accordance with the earlier final judgment of this Court.
4. Before parting with this order it needs to be noted that after about an hour of the announcement of the foregoing order another application for c adjournment was received by post. In view of what has been ordered above, thus belated application is of no avail to the applicant.