NAJIBULLAH vs Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, where an interim order had previously been granted in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment due to illness. The Court called upon the Advocate-on-Record to argue the case in the absence of the lead counsel, but the Advocate-on-Record expressed an inability to do so. Finding no valid justification for this inability and noting that an adjournment would cause a significant delay of nearly one month due to the conclusion of the current court session, the Court declined to extend the interim relief. The Court held that where an interim order operates to the prejudice of a respondent, it cannot be maintained indefinitely when the petitioner fails to prosecute the matter or provide adequate representation. Consequently, the Court vacated the interim order dated 16-7-1984 and adjourned the hearing to a date in office, emphasizing that the interest of justice requires the prompt resolution of matters where interim relief is sought.
- Can an interim order be maintained when the petitioner fails to provide representation to argue the case?
- Is an adjournment justified when it would cause a significant delay in the court's schedule?
- Does the court have the authority to vacate an interim order if the petitioner's counsel is unavailable?
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner files an application for adjournment on the ground that Mr. Shafqat Hussain learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to attend due to illness. Since ad interim order has been passed by this Court, which is to the prejudice of the respondent, we called upon the learned Advocate-on-Record to argue the petition himself but he is unable to do so. We see no valid justification for the inability of the learned Advocate-on-Record to argue the case in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, that today is the last date of the present session of this Court and adjournment of the case would really mean' postponement for nearly one month till the next session, we would not like to continue the interim order dated 16-7-1984, any further but in the interest of justice adjourn the hearing to a date' in office. Interim order dated 16-7-1984 is vacated and the respondent will be informed accordingly.