1982 PLP 188 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD ETC.-Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER — Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 188 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD ETC.-Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 188 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 188 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 188 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD ETC.-Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- -- O. IX, r. 9-Dismissal of petition, setting aside of-Petition dismissed for default of petitioner's appearance before Court sought to be restored on ground of petitioner having had no notice of date of hearing inasmuch out of three counsel engaged by him one left practice another an outstation counsel having received no notice and third counsel who could readily attend to matter not properly notified by list due to his name having not been correctly listed-High Court pointedly mentioning non-appearance on behalf of petitioner even on earlier dates-Court in showing indulgence in exercise of discretionary power and in affording relief in such matters, held, well justified to see to conduct of petitioner in diligently pursuing case before it and if material existed to establish petitioner's conduct to be deficient discretion could as well be exercised against them-High Court after attending to all relevant factors choosing not to exercise discretion in petitioner's favour in matter of restoration and exercise of such discretion being not in violation of any principle of law nor shown to be unsound, petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Ch. for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 4th April, 1981.
- 5. The learned counsel admitted during the course of the hearing that Rana Maqbool Hussain Khan was the first counsel engaged by the petitioners whose power of attorney was placed on the record of the case. Thereafter, another counsel Mr. Ijaz Anwar was engaged and his power of attorney was also placed on record. Finally, Mr. Noor Ilahi, Advocate, of Sahiwal was engaged and his power of attorney was also placed on record. It was in this background that cause list for 15‑3‑1980 contained at Serial No. 4 the particulars of the case and mentioned the name of all the three counsel of the petitioners apart from, the names of those representing the respondents. It is true that the name of Mr. Ijaz Anwar appeared as Mr. Ijaz Ahmad. There was no mistake, however, in naming the other two Advocates. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rana Maqboob Hussain Khan had left practice while Mr. Noor Ilahi was an out‑station counsel who had received no notice. The learned counsel who could readily attend to the matter had not been properly notified by the list as his name was not correctly listed. The learned Judge in the High Court had pointed mentioned that on earlier dates also there was non‑appearance on behalf o the petitioners. In showing an indulgence, in exercising a discretionary power and in affording relief in such matters the Court was well justified to see to the conduct of the petitioners in diligently pursuing the case before the Court. If there was material to establish that the conduct of the petitioners was wanting and deficient the discretion could as well be exercised against them. We find that the learned Judge has attended to all the relevant factors and has chosen not to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners in the matter of restoration. The discretion exercised is not in violation of any principle of law or shown to be unsound in the circumstances of the case. The leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 11-11-1980 in C. M. No. 3323/80 in W. P. No. 898/R of 1980).
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 4th April, 1981. SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 11‑11‑1980 whereby restoration of a constitutional petition dismissed for default was refused.
2. In the year 1970 the petitioners instituted a constitutional petition challenging certain orders passed by the Settlement (Land) Authorities. The petition carne up for hearing on 15‑3‑1984 when neither the counsel for the petitioners was present nor the petitioners themselves. The respondents were, on the other hand, represented. The Court recorded the following order "None appeared on behalf of the petitioners even on the last two dates of hearing fixed in this case. The case has been called. None appears today. Dismissed for non‑prosecution." The petitioners sought restoration on the ground that the name of Mr. Ijaz Anwar, the learned counsel for the petitioners appeared wrongly as Mr. Ijaz Ahmad and as such a mistake on the part of the office in listing occasioned the failure.
3. The learned Judge in the High Court keeping in view all the circum stances of the case, including the mistake in its listing, found that there was no merit in the petition for restoration and hence dismissed it.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the failure of the petitioners to appear on the date fixed and to ensure representation was fully explained and duly accounted for and provided sufficient justification for restoring the petition.
5. The learned counsel admitted during the course of the hearing that Rana Maqbool Hussain Khan was the first counsel engaged by the petitioners whose power of attorney was placed on the record of the case. Thereafter, another counsel Mr. Ijaz Anwar was engaged and his power of attorney was also placed on record. Finally, Mr. Noor Ilahi, Advocate, of Sahiwal was engaged and his power of attorney was also placed on record. It was in this background that cause list for 15‑3‑1980 contained at Serial No. 4 the particulars of the case and mentioned the name of all the three counsel of the petitioners apart from, the names of those representing the respondents. It is true that the name of Mr. Ijaz Anwar appeared as Mr. Ijaz Ahmad. There was no mistake, however, in naming the other two Advocates. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rana Maqboob Hussain Khan had left practice while Mr. Noor Ilahi was an out‑station counsel who had received no notice. The learned counsel who could readily attend to the matter had not been properly notified by the list as his name was not correctly listed. The learned Judge in the High Court had pointed mentioned that on earlier dates also there was non‑appearance on behalf o the petitioners. In showing an indulgence, in exercising a discretionary power and in affording relief in such matters the Court was well justified to see to the conduct of the petitioners in diligently pursuing the case before the Court. If there was material to establish that the conduct of the petitioners was wanting and deficient the discretion could as well be exercised against them. We find that the learned Judge has attended to all the relevant factors and has chosen not to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners in the matter of restoration. The discretion exercised is not in violation of any principle of law or shown to be unsound in the circumstances of the case. The leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. Leave refused.