PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs Messrs Syed SHAFIQUE AHMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the dismissal of the petitioner's First Appeal from Order (F.A.O.) by the High Court due to the non-appearance of the learned counsel on time, the subsequent refusal by the High Court to restore the appeal on the grounds of insufficient cause despite the counsel's explanation not being found false, and whether a counsel's miscalculation of timings while attending another Bench in the same court constitutes sufficient cause for restoration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered previous precedents supporting the petitioner's position and held that it was just and proper to grant leave to appeal. The principle laid down is that a bona fide mistake or miscalculation of time by counsel appearing in another bench of the same court can constitute sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal dismissed in default.
- Whether the dismissal of an appeal for non-appearance of counsel on time constitutes a ground for refusal to restore the appeal when the counsel's explanation is not found to be false?
- Whether a mistake in the estimate of timings by a counsel appearing in another Bench of the same Court constitutes sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The main questions involved in this case relate to:
(i) the dismissal of petitioner's F.A.O. By the High Court for nonappearance of the learned counsel, for the petitioner, on time as earlier fixed;
(ii) the refusal by the High Court to restore the appeal on the ground that; ' despite counsel's statement/explanation not having been found false, I there was no sufficient cause in that behalf; and
(iii) whether the mistake in estimate of timings by the counsel when I appearing in the same Court (other Bench) was a good cause or not.
2. ' C.P. 520/84 (decided on 22-2-1989), C.P. 892/84 (decided on 18-3-1989); and C.P. 675/85 (decided on 27-3-1989); as also, Babu Jan Muhammad and others v. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor and others PLD 1966 SC 461 and Salamat Bibi and others v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan PLD 1966 SC 467 have decided similar points. They, prima facie, support the petitioner's case.
3. ' We consider it just and proper to grant leave to appeal. Order accordingly.