Ch. NASEER AHMAD and 4 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minorities and 7 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an application for the restoration of a writ petition that had previously been dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioners challenged the High Court's refusal to restore the writ petition, arguing that the absence of their principal counsel was justifiable and that the non-appearance of other counsel should not have been fatal to their case. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion correctly in refusing to restore the petition, particularly given the lack of explanation for the absence of multiple counsel and the underlying merits of the case. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient grounds for restoration. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners lacked a substantive legal right to pursue the matter, as the Federal Government had already issued a final order setting aside the decision of the Evacuee Property Trust Board. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as being without force.
- Does the absence of a principal counsel justify the restoration of a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution when multiple other counsel were also absent?
- Can a writ petition be restored if the petitioner lacks a substantive legal right to the relief claimed due to a final order by the Federal Government?
ORDER
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.--Petitioners seek leave to appeal against an order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in C.M. No.603 of 1991 in W.P. No. 990 of 1991 dated 9- 7-1991.
1. The facts are that when on 1-74991, the petitioners' writ petition came up before/the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, the following order was passed:-- "There is a letter dated 22-3-1984, available on record written by the Assistant Administrator, Litigation, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Lahore addressed to Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Multan, that the said department does not want to pursue the writ petition. No body has appeared today for the petitioners. Dismissed for non-prosecution."
2. The petitioners filed an application for restoration being C.M. No. 603 of 1991. The learned Judge observed that "there were four counsel for the petitioners and even if one of them was not available there was no explanation why others were not present'. It was also noted that "the writ petition was filed on behalf of the Chairman of Evacuee Property Trust Board whose order was set aside by the Federal Government. In view of these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the prosecution of the case even was bona fide. No ground has been made out for restoration of the writ petition. This petition is dismissed in limine". This is vide order dated 1-7-1991.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the principal counsel was to appear non-appearance of the other counsel was not fatal and the non-appearance of the principal counsel was justifiable.
4. In view of the order of the final authority, the Federal Government, the petitioners have no right.
The petition is without force. It is dismissed.