MUHAMMAD YOUNIS and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR LATIF
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a revision petition for non-prosecution after the appellants' counsel failed to appear due to a conflicting engagement before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the revision petition for non-prosecution when the counsel had filed an adjournment request citing a professional engagement in the Supreme Court, despite the counsel's failure to make alternate arrangements. The Supreme Court held that while counsel are generally expected to make alternate arrangements when unable to attend, courts should exercise a modicum of indulgence when counsel faces unavoidable conflicts on short notice. The Court found that the counsel had acted in good faith given the short notice received for the Supreme Court appearance and that the dismissal was too harsh. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the revision petition. The key principle laid down is that courts should balance the necessity of judicial efficiency with the practical difficulties counsel face in managing conflicting professional engagements, particularly when short notice is involved.
- Is a court justified in dismissing a case for non-prosecution when counsel has requested an adjournment due to a conflicting engagement in a higher court?
- Should a court grant indulgence to counsel who fails to make alternate arrangements for a hearing due to short-notice professional commitments?
- Does the failure of a counsel to appear due to a conflicting engagement in the Supreme Court warrant the dismissal of a revision petition in the High Court?
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is an appeal by special leave from the order dated 24-1-1989 of the Lahore High Court, whereby the application of the appeallants for the restoration of the revision petition, earlier dismissed in default, was dismissed.
2. The revision petition preferred by the appellants was listed for hearing before the High Court on 13-12-1988. According to Mr. Q.M. Salim, counsel for the appellants, he was to represent the appellants in the revision petition. He states before us that on the evening of 11-11-1988 he received information that a matter in which he was engaged had been fixed for hearing before the Supreme Court at Rawalpindi on 13-12-1988. Accordingly, on 12-12-1988 he moved an application in the High Court for the adjournment of his case on account of his engagement in the Supreme Court at Rawalpindi. Nevertheless, when his revision petition came up before the Court a learned Single Judge dismissed it for non-prosecution. After his return from Rawalpindi he moved an application for the restoration of the revision but this too was dismissed.
3. The order by which the revision petition was dismissed reads as follows:-- "Called. No one appears. A written request for grant of adjournment received in the office from Qazi Muhammad Saleem, Advocate is available on the file. The reason stated is that he has to appear before the Supreme Court at Rawalpindi and will not, hence, be able to attend to this case.
' It is not possible to countenance such requests for adjournment because this Court cannot stop functioning while its lawyers may be busy discharging their other, professional engagments out of station, may be in the highest Court of the country. The request is, therefore, declined.
' It goes without saying that if a counsel has to unavoidably stay out of a case fixed in a Court then he is expected to make alternate arrangement for its hearing. Record of this case shows that Mr. M.
Iftikhar Shah, Advocate from the same Chamber is also associated with this case. I cannot discover any good reason why a request may not have been made to him to attend to this case today.
Actually, learned counsel did not have any right to take this Court for granted and he should, in all propriety, have either made the prayer well in advance to be able to know its fate or he may have waited for the outcome of his request that could not leave the case unattended. He has done so at his own risk.
' In the circumstances, the case is dismissed for non-prosecution."
' There is merit in the observation of the learned Single Judge that when for unavoidable reasons counsel is unable to attend to his business in a Court he should make alternate arrangement, but then the difficulties he faces on occasions must not also be overlooked. It may so happen that the time available to him is too short to make any satisfactory arrangement, or that the arrangement that he can possibly make may not be acceptable to his client. After all the relationship between counsel and client is founded on trust and confidence. It may not be therefore out of place to show some modicum of indulgence to counsel who is faced with a difficult choice with reference to the Court in which he should appear. In the case before us we are prepared to believe Mr. Q.M. Salim that he was not in a position to make satisfactory alternate arrangement in view of the short notice that he had received from the Supreme Court office for appearance at Rawlapindi. As stated earlier, he informed the office of the High Court about his engagement in the Supreme Court a day before the case came up before the learned Single Judge. In the circumstances the learned Single Judge ougth not to have dismissed the revision petition for non-prosecution. Accordingly, we accept this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court. The revision petition of the appellants shall stand restored. It should be disposed of by the High Court in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.