MOHAMMAD KHURSHID ALAM KHAN vs Ch. GHULAM RASUL
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, who declined to interfere with the restoration of a civil suit that had been dismissed for default due to the plaintiff's absence on July 24, 1968. The core legal question was whether the lower court erred in restoring the suit based on the testimony of an advocate who claimed he was instructed to appear on the date of dismissal but failed to do so due to professional pre-occupation in another court. The petitioner argued that the advocate only filed his power of attorney after the suit's dismissal. The Supreme Court observed that the advocate's testimony regarding his instructions for the hearing date remained unchallenged during cross-examination. The Court held that the advocate's subsequent filing of a power of attorney for the restoration application did not invalidate his testimony regarding his prior instructions. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision to uphold the restoration of the suit.
- Can a suit dismissed for default be restored based on the testimony of an advocate regarding their failure to appear?
- Does the filing of a power of attorney after the dismissal of a suit invalidate an advocate's testimony regarding their instructions to appear on the date of dismissal?
ORDER
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This [petition is from the order of learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to interfere with the order of restoration of the respondent's suit dismissed on.
2. Account of the absence of the plaintiff' (respondent) on the 24th July 1968. The, learned Single Judge considered the statement of Ch. Sanaul Haq, Advocate, examined as plaintiff witness No. 4 to the effect that he had been instructed to appear on the 24th July 1968, by the plaintiff - respondent, but failed to appear due to his pre-occupation before another Court.
3. Khan Hamid A.I Khan Shirwani appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the aforesaid Advocate, in fact, put in his power of attorney long after the aforesaid date of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for default. On reference to the statement of the said Advocate it does not appear that his statement that he was instructed to appear on the 24th July 1968, but on that day a he was busy in another Court, he could not appear in the case when called for hearing, has been challenged. On the contrary, he reiterated in the cross-examination that he was instructed to appear on the 24th June 1968, but as the Judge concerned was o leave, the case was adjourned to the 24th July 1968. The witness stated that he took another power of attorney from the respondent on the 29th August 1968, far the purpose of moving the applica--petition for restoration. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.