P L D 2026 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 10 (PLP)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----Art. 44---Writ petition before High Court, dismissal of---Inability of advocate to appear before the Court---Sufficient cause---Scope---High Court dismissed the restoration application filed by the appellant (writ-petitioner)---Validity---Appellant (writ-petitioner) initially filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was duly admitted for regular hearing---At the outset, the case was prosecuted by an Advocate; however, the petitioner later engaged another Advocate (who happened to be sitting President of Bar) , as his counsel---The case was fixed for arguments but on the said date, the High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner's counsel---Subsequently, restoration application was filed by the appellant contending that on the relevant date, earlier advocate appeared before the High Court and explicitly requested an adjournment explaining that the newly engaged counsel was preoccupied with proceedings before the Supreme Court; additionally, on the same date a reference in memory of the late Advocate was being held---To substantiate said request, an affidavit from later engaged advocate was also submitted---As the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, later engaged advocate was obligated to attend the reference, a judicially noticeable event providing a sufficient cause for his absence---Despite said well-founded grounds, the High Court summarily dismissed the restoration application, holding that the appellant had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance---Said approach disregarded the principles of procedural fairness and constituted a legal error---By failing to adequately consider the request of the earlier counsel and the judicially recognized obligations of the petitioner's newly engaged counsel, the High Court erred in its exercise of discretion, resulting in an unsustainable order---Therefore, Supreme Court set-aside the impugned order; consequently, the writ petition was restored on its original number ---Appeal was allowed.
• Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan, Advocate for Appellant.
• Sh. Attiq-ur-Rehman, Advocate for Respondents.
• RAZA ALI KHAN, J.---This appeal, granted leave by this Court, arises from the impugned order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the High Court, whereby the restoration application filed by the appellant was dismissed, The petitioner initially filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was duly admitted for regular hearing. At the outset, the case was prosecuted by Raja Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, Advocate; however, the petitioner later engaged Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan, Advocate, as his counsel. The case was fixed for arguments on 07.02.2024, but on the said date, the High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner's counsel. Subsequently, restoration application was filed by the appellant, wherein it was contended that and reiterated during arguments today that on the relevant date, Raja Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan appeared before the High Court and explicitly requested an adjournment. He explained that the newly engaged counsel, Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan, was preoccupied with proceedings before the Supreme Court. To substantiate this request, an affidavit from Raja Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan is also submitted. Additionally, on the same date a reference in memory of the late Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, Advocate, was being held before this Court. As the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan was obligated to attend the reference, a judicially noticeable event providing a sufficient cause for his absence. Despite these well-founded grounds, the High Court summarily dismissed the restoration application, holding that the appellant had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance. This approach disregarded the principles of procedural fairness and constituted a legal error. By failing to adequately consider the request of the earlier counsel and the judicially recognized obligations of the petitioners' newly engaged counsel, the High Court erred in its exercise of discretion, resulting in an unsustainable order. Therefore, we allow this appeal while setting-aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2024. Consequently, the writ petition is restored on its original number.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree