IFTIKHAR AHMAD SIDDIQI vs Malik AKHTAR ALI and others
This matter arises from an application seeking the restoration of a review petition that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of senior counsel. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient cause was shown for the non-appearance of counsel on the date of hearing. The Supreme Court held that no sufficient cause or valid justification was provided for the absence of the counsel, noting that the Advocate-on-Record was unable to argue the matter and that the excuse regarding counsel being busy before another court was inadequate, especially considering the circumstances of the case. The application for restoration was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the absence of senior counsel due to engagement in another court constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside an order of dismissal for non-prosecution?
- Can a review petition dismissed for non-prosecution be restored when the Advocate-on-Record expresses inability to argue the matter?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--This application seeks the restoration of the review petition dismissed for non-prosecution on 25th January, 1986, on the ground that none of the senior Counsel was present to prosecute the appeal. The Advocate-on-Record who was present also expressed his inability to argue the matter. The reason for their absence was that MrA.K. Brohi had to argue the case but he had not come from Karachi as he was busy before the Supreme Court. There was no explanation as to why the counsel who drew the petition was not able to come. However, that day was a Saturday and there was no Court sitting at Karachi. This being so, the Bench dismissing the petition took note of it and expressed that there was no impediment for the counsel to appear in the case on that day.
2. ' We do not see any reason to take a different view, and, accordingly, find no cause for setting aside that order.
3. ' The application is accordingly dismissed.