Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a miscellaneous application for the restoration of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 319 of 1973, which had been dismissed for default due to the non-appearance of the learned counsel and the learned Advocate-on-Record. The core legal question is whether sufficient cause has been shown for the restoration of a dismissed leave petition where the Advocate-on-Record fell ill but no explanation was provided for the absence of the engaged counsel or office staff, and where the matter was called only after being passed over and notice was sent. The Supreme Court held that no justification exists for restoration, noting that the applicant's counsel and Advocate-on-Record failed to exercise due diligence or have the proceedings watched. The key principle laid down is that negligence and lack of diligence in attending court proceedings or ensuring representation do not warrant the indulgence of restoring a petition dismissed in default.
- Whether a petition dismissed for default can be restored when the Advocate-on-Record falls ill but no explanation is provided for the absence of the engaged counsel?
- Does failure to have court proceedings watched constitute sufficient ground for the restoration of a dismissed leave petition?
ORDER
1. ' HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a miscellaneous application in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 319 of 1973 (Haji Muhammad Sharif v. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others) which was dismissed for default on the 14th of March 1974, on the ground that neither the learned counsel nor the learned Advocate-on-Record was present.
2. The present application is for restoration of the petition for special leave to appeal on the ground that the learned Advocate-on-Record seriously fell ill and, therefore, could not attend the Court on 14-3-74. There is nothing in the application to show as to why the learned counsel appearing in the case could not be present on the said date, nor is there any explanation as to why the clerk of the learned counselor of the learned Advocate-onRecord could not make arrangements to have the matter mentioned in Court. It appears that this petition was first passed over and then re-called after; all other petitions on the list had been disposed of after sending word to the office of the learned Advocate-on-Record. It seems that neither the learned Advocate-on-Record nor the learned counsel took any care to have the proceedings in Court watched, even after they had been duly notified of the pendency of the proceedings.
3. ' In the circumstances, we see no justification at all to restore the matter. The Court could not have shown greater indulgence before dismissing the petition on the 14th March 1974.
4. ' The application is accordingly rejected. Petition rejected.