1968 SCMR 193 (PLP)
Mst. TAJ BEGUM AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus SULTAN KHAN AND 12 Others-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 193 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. TAJ BEGUM AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus SULTAN KHAN AND 12 Others-Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 193 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 193 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 193 (PLP) (Mst. TAJ BEGUM AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus SULTAN KHAN AND 12 Others-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. H. Najafi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- ---Art. 58 (3)-Special leave to appeal sought from order of High Court refusing to restore a Letters Patent Appeal dismissed for default due to negligence of counsel-Contention that petitioner should not be made to suffer for negligence of Advocate-Held to be without substance-Petition dismissed.
- The said Letters Patent Appeal was listed for hearing on the 1st of December 1965. It appeared in the cause list of the day at No. 5. The number of the Letters Patent Appeal and the names of the parties were correctly given in the cause list but the name of the learned Advocate appearing was by mistake mentioned as Mr. Abdur Rahim Rana instead of Mr. Abdur Rahman Khan. Hence the learned Advocate Mr. Abdur Rahman Khan it is said, missed this case on the cause list. Nothing, however, was done for nearly two years, but on the 30th of July 1966, miscellaneous case was filed along with an application for condonation of delay for the restoration of the Letters Patent Appeal. It was stated that the fact of the dismissal for default of the Letters Patent two had come to the knowledge of the petitioners only about two weeks before the 30th of July 1966, when somebody on behalf of the petitioners came to the learned Advocate to enquire about the progress of the Letters Patent Appeal. It was then that the learned Advocate made enquiries and came to know that it had been dismissed for default on the 1st December 1965.
- The High Court took the view that either the learned Advocate concerned or his clerk had beengrossly negligent in keeping track of the Letters Patent Appeal which was actually filed as long ago as 1959, and hence there was no sufficient ground for condoning the delay or restoring the appeal. The petitioners; now seek special leave to appeal from this order and all that has a been urged on their behalf is that they should not be made to suffer for the negligence of their learned Advocate in the High Court. We are unable, however, to agree with this contention, B for, who else should be held liable. Surely not the respondents, to whom a valuable right has now accrued by reason of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal. They cannot be deprived of that right merely on the ground that the petitioners should not be made liable for their Advocate's negligence.
- That there was gross negligence by the counsel cannot be disputed. He did not even care to enquire about the progress of the appeal which had been filed by him till his clients' agent came to make enquiries. Such conduct clearly indicates that i neither the learned Advocate nor his clerk were seriously inter- C ested in the fate of the Letters Patent Appeal which was, in any event, from an interlocutory order refusing stay of further proceedings in the suit. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by his conduct they should seek to have redress from him and not harass the respodents. This petition is wholly without any substance and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 29th June 1967, in C. M. No. 75382 of 1966/C. M. 1832 of 1967 in L. P. A. No. 93. of 1959).
Art. 58 (3)-Special leave to appeal sought from order of High Court refusing to restore a Letters Patent Appeal dismissed for default due to negligence of counsel-Contention that petitioner should not be made to suffer for negligence of Advocate-Held to be without substance-Petition dismissed.
O. XLI, r. 19-Re admission of appeal dismissed for default-"Sufficient cause"-Appeal of client dismissed for default due to gross negligence of counsel-Aggrieved client should seek redress from his counsel and not harass respondent (opposite-party).
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, refusing to restore a Letters Patent Appeal, which had been earlier dismissed for default on the 1st of December 1965. The Letters Patent Appeal arose out of an order refusing to stay further proceedings while admitting an appeal from a preliminary decree in a partition suit. The said Letters Patent Appeal was listed for hearing on the 1st of December 1965. It appeared in the cause list of the day at No.
5. The number of the Letters Patent Appeal and the names of the parties were correctly given in the cause list but the name of the learned Advocate appearing was by mistake mentioned as Mr. Abdur Rahim Rana instead of Mr. Abdur Rahman Khan. Hence the learned Advocate Mr. Abdur Rahman Khan it is said, missed this case on the cause list. Nothing, however, was done for nearly two years, but on the 30th of July 1966, miscellaneous case was filed along with an application for condonation of delay for the restoration of the Letters Patent Appeal. It was stated that the fact of the dismissal for default of the Letters Patent two had come to the knowledge of the petitioners only about two weeks before the 30th of July 1966, when somebody on behalf of the petitioners came to the learned Advocate to enquire about the progress of the Letters Patent Appeal. It was then that the learned Advocate made enquiries and came to know that it had been dismissed for default on the 1st December 1965. The High Court took the view that either the learned Advocate concerned or his clerk had beengrossly negligent in keeping track of the Letters Patent Appeal which was actually filed as long ago as 1959, and hence there was no sufficient ground for condoning the delay or restoring the appeal. The petitioners; now seek special leave to appeal from this order and all that has a been urged on their behalf is that they should not be made to suffer for the negligence of their learned Advocate in the High Court. We are unable, however, to agree with this contention, B for, who else should be held liable. Surely not the respondents, to whom a valuable right has now accrued by reason of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal. They cannot be deprived of that right merely on the ground that the petitioners should not be made liable for their Advocate's negligence. That there was gross negligence by the counsel cannot be disputed. He did not even care to enquire about the progress of the appeal which had been filed by him till his clients' agent came to make enquiries. Such conduct clearly indicates that i neither the learned Advocate nor his clerk were seriously inter- C ested in the fate of the Letters Patent Appeal which was, in any event, from an interlocutory order refusing stay of further proceedings in the suit. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by his conduct they should seek to have redress from him and not harass the respodents. This petition is wholly without any substance and is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.