TARIQ MANZOOR vs ABDUL AZIZ And Other
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the restoration of a civil revision petition that had been earlier dismissed for default. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned whether the High Court erred in dismissing the restoration application and whether considering the past conduct of a party in absenting themselves constitutes an extraneous consideration when refusing an adjournment request. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding lack of notice and manoeuvring by ministerial staff lacked factual basis, and that noting the conduct of a party or their counsel is a valid factor when granting or refusing adjournments. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, upholding the High Court's order.
- Whether the past conduct of a party in absenting themselves is an extraneous consideration when refusing an adjournment request?
- Can a civil revision petition dismissed for default be restored when the grounds raised for absence lack factual basis?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 29th of May, 1983, of the High Court; whereby an application made by the petitioner for restoration of his civil revision petition which had earlier been dismissed for default, was dismissed.
2. Two grounds were raised before the High Court: One, the main petition was not fixed for hearing for 29th of May, 1983, when it was dismissed for non-prosecution; and two, that the learned counsel for the petitioner had made an application for general adjournment which could not be put up before the Court on account of manoeuvring by the ministerial staff at the instance of the other party.
3. Both the contentions were found incorrect. The application for restoration of the revision was accordingly dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been unable to controvert the position that there was no factual basis for the contentions raised before the High Court. He, however, raised a new point, namely, that a request for adjournment made by the sister of the petitioner on 23rd May, 1983, when the Revision Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, was rejected on extraneous consideration that earlier too the petitioner-side had been absenting themselves.
5. We do not agree with the learned counsel that it was an extraneous consideration for the Court to note the conduct of a party or their counsel when granting or refusing a request for adjournment.
6. No ground has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused.