CHIRAGH DIN AND 4 Others vs Mst. JANAT BIBI AND 4 Other
This miscellaneous application seeks the restoration of a petition for special leave to appeal which was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question concerns whether the sudden illness of the counsel and Advocate-on-Record constitutes sufficient cause for restoration when no prior arrangement was made to inform the court, and whether the divisibility of an evacuee property is amenable to constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the illness of the Advocate-on-Record and counsel, unaccompanied by timely notification to the court or diligence on the part of the petitioners, does not absolve them of the obligation to appear, and furthermore, the divisibility of an evacuee house for transfer purposes is not open to question in the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The key principles laid down are that parties and their authorized agents must ensure proper representation, and administrative decisions regarding the divisibility of evacuee properties under settlement laws are generally immune from constitutional review.
- Does the sudden illness of an Advocate-on-Record without making arrangements to inform the court constitute sufficient ground to restore a petition dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Is the divisibility of an evacuee house for the purpose of its transfer open to question in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction?
- Act 28 of 1958
1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J. This is a miscellaneous application for Use restoration of CPSLA No.126 of 1974 which was dismissed on the 28 June 1974 for non-prosecution.
2. Restoration of the petition is sought on the groundthat on that datethe A. O. R. And counsel engaged to appear in the case were bona taken However, the application was neither supported by an affidavit nor medicalcertificate. Therefore, on a request bycounsel the consideration of theapplication was adjourned on the 28th .July. 1974 to enable him to file an affidavit or a medical certificate.
3. Learned counsel and A.O.R for the petitioners have both filed affidavits to say that they were suddenly taken ill on 28-6-1974 and 27-6-1974 respectively and therefore could appear. There is no reason to doubt that statement. It however, does not, absolve theAdvocate-on-Record much less the petitioners of their obligation to appear. The Advocate-on-Recordaccording to his affidavit fell ill a day earlier buthe made on arrangement to inform the Court in time. No affidavit is, tiled by petitioner to have briefed A.O. R. Did not absolve them of their obligation to appear andto ensure that their case is properly conducted.
4. Incidentally we also allowed learned counsel to address us on the merits of the case the dispute concerns the divisibility of evacuee house No I-S/3 Block No.15, Sargodhawhich the Settlement Authority ultimately held to be divisible.This was unsuccessfully called in question in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.The law is now well-settled that the divisibility of evacuee housefor the purpose of it transfer under Act 28 of 1958 is not open to questionin the High Court in, fits writ jurisdiction.th However, that may be, the application for restoration is dismissed to failure of the; Advocate-on- Record and the petitioners to appear on 28-6-1974.
Cited by 10 cases
- UNITED BANK LIMITED vs Mian TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN 1998 CLC 179
- BHOORALAL vs MA. ANSARI and another 1993 MLD 238
- NAZIR AHMAD vs COLLECTOR LAHORE DISTRICT LAHORE and 3 others 1993 CLC 241
- BASHIR AHMED vs GHULAM MUJTABA KHAN 1991 CLC 894
- HUSSAIN NASSER Versus SHAMIM YAQUB 1989 CLC 2125
- Messrs REPUBLIC ENGINEERS vs BADRUDDIN SALEH 1989 MLD 1239
- Syed INTISAR ALI vs AHMAD DIN KHAN 1986 MLD 1374
- DUMMAR COAL COMPANY vs AKBAR KHAN 1986 CLC 2458
- RAFIQ AHMAD KHAWAJA vs ABDUL HALEEM 1982 SCMR 1229
- GHULAM MOHYUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR QURESHI And Other 1986 SCMR 779