1988 PLP 1181 (CLC)

Civil Revision Application No. 199 of 1987, decided on 15th September, 1987. ‑‑

0. XLI, R. 19‑‑Appeal‑‑Dismissal in default‑‑Setting aside of‑ Requirements‑‑Appeal was dismissed for default of appearance by appellant's counsel‑‑Neither explanation given in application for re‑admission of appeal was proved to be correct nor application was supported by affidavit of counsel or his junior‑‑Explanation given by petitioner, held, was rightly rejected by Appellate Court below in circumstances. Hafiz Abdul Baqi for Petitioner. This revision application is filed by the applicant against the order of District Judge, West Karachi dated 9th July, 1987. By the impugned order the learned Judge refused to set aside the dismissal of the appeal for default. Mr. Hafiz Abdul Baqi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that he had noted the next date in his diary on the information conveyed to him by his junior on 14‑2‑1987 as 16‑3‑1987 and as such he could not appear on 16‑2‑1987 when the appeal was called for hearing in the Court. The learned District Judge did not accept the above contention of the appellant on the ground that the application for re‑admission of the appeal is neither supported by the affidavit of junior counsel of the appellant nor his senior counsel. It was also noticed by the learned District Judge that even the case diary maintained by the counsel was not produced in Court, for inspection. In spite of above observation of learned District Judge no effort was made by the applicant in this Court to support his allegations in the application under Order 41 Rule 19, C.P.C. filed before learned District Judge, by filing affidavit of the counsel. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that he attended the Court of District Judge on 14‑2‑1987 when it was adjourned to 16‑2‑1987 but it was maintained that he bona fide noted the next date of hearing as 16‑3‑1987. The learned counsel was asked by me to produce his case diary which he did. After looking to page of the diary which contained the entries about the cases fixed on 14‑2‑1987, I cannot resist of remark that figure '3' in the date noted against Case No 165 of 1986 was not written originally but the same was changed from some other figure, and most probably figure '2' which is apparent to naked eye. There is yet another fact which belied the contention of applicant in the case. The 1st entry on the page of the diary containing details of the case attended by the counsel on 16‑3‑1987 relates to two Rent Cases adjourned to that date on 4‑2‑1987. The second, third, fourth and the fifth entries on this very page show these cases which were adjourned from 1‑3‑1987, 5‑3‑1987, 12‑3‑1987 and 10‑3‑1987 respectively. The entry of Civil Appeal No.165 of 1986 appear at this page in the bottom in a different ink after the case which was adjourned from 10‑3‑1987. There is no explanation why this case was not entered on the page of the diary of 16‑3‑1987 after the case 'which was adjourned to that date from 4‑2‑1986 and before those cases which were adjourned from 1‑3‑1987 to 12‑3‑1987. If the contention of appellant was correct that on 14‑2‑1987 he was informed that the case has been adjourned to 16‑3‑1987 and he accordingly informed his counsel it was natural. that the entry regarding his case should have appeared before the entries of those cases which were subsequently adjourned from 1‑3‑1987 to 12‑3‑1987. Mr. Hafiz Abdul Baqi, the learned counsel contends that he made the entry regarding Case No. 165/86 on being informed by his junior but this explanation was rightly rejected by the learned District A Judge in view of the above facts. No case for interference is made out. The Revision Application is dismissed summarily. H . B . T . / A‑251/ K Revision dismissed.