P L D 1989 Supreme Court 516 (PLP)

(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Petitioner not approaching Court with clean hands‑‑High Court can decline relief to petitioner on account of his conduct. Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This restoration application is based on the ground that the learned counsel for the petitioner had sought and obtained adjournment from the Bench on an oral request with oral order on some earlier date. When told that during the days in question the counsel/AORs were also required to submit a formal note/ application even if an ‑oral request is accepted by oral order about the case fixed on a future date. It is necessary obviously, so as to avoid subsequent complications as has arisen in this case. Today the Bench pointed out to the learned counsel that proper procedure was not followed by the counsel/AOR. However, the Bench had taken care, when dismissing the petition for non‑prosecution, of having examined the merits and it was 'found that there was "no case on merits either". The learned counsel in reply took up an unusual plea, but with all respects to the Court, ‑that he was not aware of the need for filing of an application. We hope that the counsel/AOR will at least now remain aware of this need so that the innocent clients/parties should not suffer on account‑of‑ such like mistakes. Even if there is no written Court direction for filing a formal application, it is always in the interest of the party concerned as well as its counsel and AOR that after obtaining an oral order for adjournment an application or a memorandum stating this fact, should be presented before the office. In that case all danger of loss to the parties would be avoided. All said and done we also checked from C.A. He incidently is the same person who was on duty in Court when the learned counsel states that he had obtained verbal order of adjournment. The C.A. has stated that the counsel had made verbal request and an oral order of adjournment was passed but with specific condition that it shall not be effective unless a written application /note in this behalf is presented to the office. This incident might itself demonstrate the loss which can occur to a party on account of a very insignificant lapse/laxity. It is hoped and expected that the practice of filing written applications for adjournment would not be given up only because of a little I inconvenience to the learned counsel and A.O.R. This, also applies to cases like the present one, Mutatis Mutandis. Thus all possible wastage of time and unnecessary expense and loss to the parties would be avoided. For what has been stated above, this application for restoration should have been dismissed. However, the Court heard the learned counsel on merits also. He after arguing the case at some length has not been able to change our view in this behalf. On this (the merits) the petition for leave to appeal is liable to be dismissed; mainly, on account of conduct of the. petitioner. The High Court was not approached in its writ jurisdiction with clean hands. Whether in exercise of that jurisdiction by the High Court or in the exercise of its jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal, by this Court ‑ both being discretionary, the petitioner has no case as stated, on account of his conduct. Order accordingly. This petition is thus dismissed. M . B . A . / D‑45/ S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.