Mir MUHAMMAD MURTAZA vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which dismissed an application for the restoration of a writ petition previously dismissed in default for non-prosecution. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient cause was shown for the restoration of the writ petition, taking into account the non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel due to professional engagements elsewhere and the alleged lack of service of notice. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner and his counsel failed to exercise due diligence and did not take proper interest in prosecuting the petition, noting prior instances of default and adjournments. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the refusal by the High Court to restore the writ petition was justified given the conduct of the petitioner.
- Whether non-service of notice to a party constitutes sufficient ground for the restoration of a writ petition dismissed in default?
- Does the absence of counsel due to professional engagement elsewhere justify the restoration of a matter dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing to restore a writ petition marked by a history of lack of due diligence?
ORDER
' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 22-1-1983 passed in C. M. 15 of 1983 in Writ Petition 604/S/79.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that the petitioner had submitted an application for the restoration of the writ petition within the prescribed period but the learned Judges have ignored the reasons stated therein; that the none appearance of the petitioner's counsel on the date of hearing was caused on account of his professional engagement at Lahore while no notice from the Court was served upon the petitioner despite a direction of the Court on the previous date that the case should be re-enlisted after notice to the parties and counsel and thus non-service of any notice issued by the office of the Lahore High Court on the petitioner was by itself a sufficient ground for the restoration of the writ petition; that the law favours decision of the cases on merit and the petitioner's writ petition involved serious and important questions of law, it should not have been dismissed in default and its restoration should not have been refused to the petitioner; that the petitioner's counsel had duly informed the High Court that since he would be busy at Lahore, he would not be able to attend the case at Rawalpindi.
3. We have gone through the judgment of the Lahore High Court which shows that on the date, neither the petitioner nor his counsel had entered appearance; that earlier on 29-11-1982 also the position was the same butt in the interest of justice the case was adjourned to 19-12-1982 with notices to the petitioner as well as to his counsel. The learned Judges remarked.
"All this reveals that the petitioner and his learned counsel have not been taking due interest in the prosecution of the petition despite the assurance given by them on 3-7-1979 when the petition was restored after its dismissal for want of prosecution..."
' This conduct of the petitioner would show that there was no due diligence exercised to follow the writ petition. Hence, we find this petition to be without merit and the same is, consequently, dismissed.