1999 PLP 2005 (CLC)

Notice of the rent application was served on the appellant. Her learned counsel filed Vakalatnama on 3‑8‑1995 and then time was allowed to file written statement on 28‑5‑1995, but on that date neither the appellant nor her learned counsel appeared and no step was taken to connect the matter. Ultimately, learned Rent Controller passed the impugned order on 26‑4‑1997. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. Leaned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate that several attempts were made by him to bring the written statement on record and the Court had remained vacant, therefore, due to misunderstanding sufficient chance was not given to the appellant to resist the ejectment proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. The record shows that the appellant was served on 4‑7‑1995 and her learned counsel filed Vakalatnama on 13‑8‑1995 and then the matter was adjourned to 28‑8‑1995 for filing the written statement. Again it was adjourned to 7‑9‑1995 and 13‑9‑1995 for the same purpose, but till 21‑9‑1995 no written statement was‑filed, therefore, it was ordered that the matter to proceed ex parte and on 27‑9‑1995 affidavit in ex parte proof was filed. The record further 'reveals that the appellant filed application under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C. on 14‑11‑1995 to allow her to file written statement. This application was supported by affidavit of Mr. A. Karim Ayub Memon, learned counsel for the appellant and relevant paras. of his affidavit read as under:‑‑

"(1) That I am pleading the above case hence am well‑aware of the facts of the case. (2) That I say on receiving the summons of Court by opponent No. 1, I handed over to the to represent the case. (3) That when I filed power, I did come to know this case is under process for service to the opponent No.2. (4) That I appeared on dates fixed but on not finding the ease in cause‑list, I went to the office to ascertain about. (5) That there was said due to the misunderstanding the date is given in Case No.1351 of 1995 instead of Case No.381 of 1995 and I was satisfied by the c/o Reader of the Court. (6) When I reached to the another date to file written statement. I was surprised to note that the said case is lying for the ex parte proof, hence I move an accompanying application treated part and parcel with this affidavit. " Muhammad Younus Saeed attorney of the respondent filed counter‑affidavit and this application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 30‑11‑1997 Yet another application under section 151, C.P.C. was filed for "affording a chance for contesting the suit" but this was also dismissed on 1‑4‑1997. This was followed by passing of the impugned order on 26‑4‑1997. On careful examination of the record I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that sufficient opportunity to contest the proceedings was not given to her. Once a party receives intimation for an action it is for him to pursue it and to keep himself in touch with the proceedings either personally or through his counsel‑ In other words it was not only the duty of the counsel to keep his client uptodate of the proceedings in litigation but duty wasi also cast upon the client to keep himself in touch with the counsel and to keep himself informed of the progress in the action brought for or against him. (see Chiragh Din and 4 others v. Mst. Jannat Bibi and 6 others 1976 SCMR 399; Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Khan and another 1974 SCMR 162; Muhammad Sharif Khan v. Board of Revenue, West Pakistan 1970 SCMR 77; Sher Muhammad v. Said Muhammad Shah 1981 SCMR 212 and Abdul Shakoor Haji Aminud Din v: Miss Mumtaz and others PLD 1961 (W.P. Kar. 145). Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in my humble view, .the appellant and her learned counsel failed to watch and pursue the proceedings. They also failed to disclose good cause, therefore, the learned Rent Controller rightly exercised the discretion in dismissing the applications under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C. as well as under section 151, C.P.C. The respondent has established her bona fide requirement as well as default in payment of rent, therefore, I see no reason at all to upset the impugned order which is just and proper. This appeal having no force is dismissed with costs. The appellant is directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondent within 60 days (sixty days) but would be subject to payment of rent according to law. Q.M.H.//M.A.K./A‑243/K Order accordingly