1987 PLP 1015 (CLC)

It seems that two amended applications were filed but the tenant submitted only one rejoinder. The learned Controller framed the following issues:‑ (1). Whether the shop in question is required by applicant in good faith for demolishing and reconstruction? (2) Whether the respondent without permission or consent of the applicant has made material changes in the shop in question which has diminished its utility? (3) Relief. The present respondents examined two witnesses and also got recorded statement of their attorney, whereas the tenants did not produce any witness despite several opportunities given to them. Ultimately, the application was accepted and the tenants were ordered to hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the present respondents. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties, I am inclined to dispose of this appeal on a short point; whether the appellants were given proper opportunity of being heard? During the course of arguments the counsel for the appellants raised objection that neither he was authorised counsel nor any summons were issued to the legal heirs of late Chiragh Din. Therefore, he contended that the tenants were not given any opportunity of being heard and they have been condemned unheard. I have carefully examined the record of the lower Court on this point. The order‑sheet, dated 19‑3‑1985 indicates that Chiragh Din's counsel brought to the notice of the Controller that Chiragh Din expired and that the counsel moved an application for bringing the L. Rs. of late Chiragh Din on record, the copy of which was handed over to the applicant's counsel and the matter was adjourned for amended application. On 31‑3‑1985, the amended eviction application was submitted and copy whereof was given to the counsel for the respondents. Whereafier, several opportunities were given for filing of list of witnesses of the tenants, but the same was never submitted. So much so, that on 21‑5‑1986 the last opportunity to appellants was given at the cost of Rs.50 and the matter was adjourned to 28‑5‑1986. One 28‑5‑1986, again the appellants' did not turn up and the matter was then adjourned for announcement of the judgment on 31‑5‑1986. It is indeed astonishing to note that the appellants counsel did not raise any objection neither before the Controller nor in the memo. of appeal about the fact that he was not duly authorised counsel of the L.Rs. of late Chiragh Din. I have carefully perused the record and I have failed to find any Vakalatnama signed by the L.Rs. of late Chiragh Din i.e. the present appellant to authorise M. Abdul Hafeez Amjad to represent them before the Controller. There is only one Vakalatnama signed by late Muhammad Chiragh. In order to satisfy myself, whether after the death of said Chiragh Din, any summons were issued to the L. Rs. of late Chiragh Din, I scrutinized the entire file/record of the Controller but found none. No summons were issued by the Controller to the L.Rs. of late Chiragh Din nor they were being represented through duly authorised counsel. As such without going to the merits of the case. I am inclined to hold that the appellants were not given proper opportunity for defence. Hence I accept their appeal and remand the case to the Controller to give an opportunity to the appellants for producing evidence, if any. Since the appellants are now being represented through Mr. Abdul Hafeez Amjad, hence I direct the counsel for the appellants to inform his clients to appear before the Controller on 1‑10‑1986 and submit the list of witnesses, if any, without any further issuance of summons. The matter may be concluded within two months positively and the Registrar of this Court may accordingly be intimated in case of failure. The matter is pending since very long and any further delay would be detrimental and unjust. Therefore, adjournments should not be given lightly. However, I have noted with concern the conduct of the counsel. It seems that after the death of Chiragh Din his counsel Mr. Abdul Hafeez Amjad himself moved an application to the Controller for bringing the L.Rs. of late Chiragh Din on record. This application was signed by him as their counsel. As such the Court took him as counsel of the L. Rs. of late Chiragh Din. By his conduct, Mr. Abdul Hafeez Amjad impressed upon the Court that he was duly authorised counsel of the appellants. It was he, who made application for bringing the L.Rs. of late Chiragh Din on record. Besides that, he has been appearing on their behalf without any legal authority. It was because of his conduct that the Controller was under the impression that appellants were being duly represented. Such conduct on the part of a senior counsel is not appreciated and he is warned to be careful in future and should not try to mislead the Court. It was not difficult for him to have obtained signatures of the L. Rs. as he did at the time of filing of this appeal. It is unfortunate to note that the delay in legal proceedings is caused by such an uncalled attitude. However, since no summons were issued to the L. Rs. nor they were being represented through a duly authorised counsel, hence, they were not given any opportunity of being heard. I, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the eviction order, dated 31‑5‑1986 and remand the case to the Controller for disposal according to law within a period of two months and no further delay would be appreciated. There will be no orders as to costs. H.B.T. /253/Q Appeal allowed.