1986 PLP 578 (PLC)

The opponent has also asserted that for the last one year since the applicants filed the applications, the case is being adjourned at the instance of the applicants. I have heard Mr. Shamsuddin Soomro, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. M. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the opponent. The learned counsel for the applicants confined his arguments on the sole point of misunderstanding the date of hearing, as urged in the affidavits of the applicants and cited 1969 P L D S C 270, wherein, it has been held that sufficient cause for restoration is not susceptable of exact definition and no hard & fast rule can be laid down. In that matter the learned Advocate could not make his appearance because he was busy in some other Court and this reason was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But in the instant case, no such ground has been taken by the learned Counsel, therefore, the above case law cited by him is of no help to him. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Opponent Organisation Mr. Awan submitted that no re‑joinder to the counter affidavits have been filed by the applicants, therefore, the assertions made in the counter‑affidavits are to be accepted as correct and uncontroverted. He further submitted th4 the ground as taken by the applicants in their affidavits is not a sufficient cause for restoration of the applications. He cited the latest law, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as reported in 1982 S C M R 462, wherein it has been held as under: ‑ "Ground that the petitioners' counsel took it for granted that case had been adjourned to next date and not to fixed date . . . . . . . . cannot be regarded as sufficient cause for petitioners' absence on fixed date so as to warrant restoration of revision petition. " and contended that it is the direct authority applicable in the circumstances of the case in hand. The learned counsel further submitted that the lack of interest of the applicants in pursuing their applications can well be gauged from their conduct and the fact that they could seek the restoration of their dismissed applications on the last date of limitation i.e. 5‑12‑1985. He also contended that the provisions of C.P.C. are not attracted to the proceedings before this Court as such the applications for restoration are misconceived. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the matter and gone through the case law and have come to the conclusion that the ground urged by the applicants for seeking restoration of their dismissed applications is neither a sufficient cause nor convincing one, and as such their applications merit no consideration. Consequently, the restoration applications filed by the applicants stand dismissed. Announced in open Court, this 10th day of March, 1986 A. A. Application dismissed,