1975 PLP 387 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to

5. Respondent No. 6 in person, C. P. S. L. A. No. K‑233 of 1974 N. K. Jatoi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. I. Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 6th March 1975. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court refusing to restore two writ petitions, namely, No. 807/65 and 418/67, which had earlier been dismissed for non‑prosecution. The first writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on the 22nd November 1965. An order of interim stay was also granted. Thereafter, the second writ petition was filed against the Karachi Municipal Corporation by the same petitioner and both the petitions were fixed for hearing together. The case could not be fixed until the 1974, but on this date the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner asked for an adjournment on the ground that he was busy in conducting certain bail applications in the lower Courts. The High Court took the view that the request was unjustified, because, the Magisterial Courts could not take precedence over the High Court. The adjournment was refused and the petitions were dismissed for non‑prosecution. In this order, it was also observed that on the earlier date of hearing, when it was found that the learned counsel had not yet filed his vakalatnama', an adjournment was granted to enable him to do so but it was pointed out that if by the next date of hearing the 'vakalatnama' was not filed, the petitions would be dismissed. Notwithstanding this, the learned counsel did not file his 'vakalatnama' and again prayed for an adjournment. The refusal of the adjournment cannot, in the circumstances, be said to be unjustified. The applications for restoration were also dismissed, because, the petitions themselves had been dismissed on grounds which the High Court considered valid and proper. Learned counsel appearing in support of these petitions has contended that the refusal to restore was arbitrary, because, in the circumstances of the case, his request for adjournment was reasonable. He was engaged in matters of pressing urgency concerning the arrest of students who were actually appearing in examinations at the time. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. This was no excuse for his failure to file his 'vakalatnama' in the petitions for which he had already obtained time on the condition that if the 'vakalatnama' was not filed by the next date the petitions would be dismissed. The petitions had been originally filed by another learned counsel and if the petitioners had not given the learned counsel now appearing in these petitions a 'vakalatnama', he had no business to appear in the Court. Indeed, he had no locus standi even to ask for an adjournment until he had filed his 'vakalatnama'. The refusal of the High Court was, therefore, fully justified and so was the refusal to restore the writ petitions. We see no ground for interference. Both these petitions are, accord ingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed,