ALI AHMAD And Another vs RAHIM BAKHSH Through Legal Heirs And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal by the High Court of the petitioners' application for restoration of an appeal previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question concerns whether the negligence of a counsel should penalize the client and whether the High Court erred in refusing to restore the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the reasoning of the High Court in refusing restoration was unexceptionable, and upon examining the merits of the appeal sought to be restored, found that it merited dismissal in any event. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that where an appeal lacks merit on its face, the refusal to restore it from a dismissal for non-prosecution does not warrant interference by the Supreme Court, and leave to appeal is accordingly refused.
- Should the negligence of a counsel operate as a punishment to the client in the context of restoring a dismissed appeal?
- Does an appeal that lacks merit warrant the granting of leave to appeal against the refusal to restore it from dismissal for non-prosecution?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: --Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners application for restoration of an appeal which had earlier been dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the negligence of the counsel should not have been allowed to operate as punishment to his client; namely the petitioners.
3. The matter is not that simple as assumed by the learned counsel. The reasoning in the impugned judgment in support of the refusal to restore the matter is unexceptionable. However, after hearing the learned counsel on the merits of the appeal in the High Court, which was sought to be restored, we are satisfied that it otherwise merited dismissal. That being so, leave to appeal is refused.