MUHAMMAD TASNEEM vs CONTROLLER, SECONDARY BOARD OF EDUCATION
This civil miscellaneous petition seeks the restoration of a civil appeal that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question revolves around whether sufficient ground was shown for the restoration of the appeal based on a claim of late intimation of the hearing date. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since both the Advocate-on-Record and the counsel received intimation prior to the date of hearing, their failure to appear or inform the court constituted clear negligence. Consequently, the court established the principle that receipt of hearing notice by counsel or Advocate-on-Record prior to the hearing date precludes a claim of late intimation constituting sufficient ground for restoration when neither appears nor seeks an adjournment.
- Whether late intimation of a hearing date constitutes sufficient ground for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution when counsel received notice prior to the hearing?
- Does failure of the Advocate-on-Record or counsel to appear or seek an adjournment after receiving prior notice of hearing amount to negligence?
ORDER
1. ' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.--This civil Miscellaneous petition seeks the restoration of the petitioner's Civil Appeal No, 229 of 1979 which was dismissed on 26-6-1983 for non-prosecution. Admittedly, the petitioner's Advocate-on-Record had received the intimation of the hearing of the appeal, on 23- 6-1983 and he contacted the petitioner's counsel on 25-6-1983, who, thereupon, sent telegraphic intimation to the petitioner on 26-6-1983. Learned counsel urges that the non-appearance was on account of late intimation. Both the Advocate-on-Record and the counsel had received the intimation before the date of hearing and as such at least one of them could have appeared or if that was not possible, at least the Court could have been informed of the difficulty and adjournment sought. There was thus clear negligence. No sufficient ground has been shown for restoration. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUQEEM and 2 others vs THE STATE 1993 P Cr. L J 1367