1972 PLP 623 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner herein went up to the Peshawar High Court in revision under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, against an order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Hazara, dated the 22nd of March 1970, by which lands allotted to the petitioner to the extent of 3452 units were canceled under section 10 of the afore mentioned Act. When this petition came up for hearing before the High Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner there stated that he hid no instructions from his client who was not present in Court. The matter was, therefore, adjourned and fresh sum mons were directed to be issued to the petitioner personally. He was duly served, but neither he nor his counsel appeared on the appointed date. The High Court took the ‑view that, since the petitioner had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner/ Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and made a statement that the excess area be cancelled, he was deliberately adopting delaying; tactics to hold up the disposal of the revision Petition. The petition was accordingly dismissed for non‑prosecution on the 13th of January 1971 . The petitioner filed an application for restoration. This came up for hearing on the 2nd of March 1971. The ground urged is support of the application for restoration teas that the petitioned had sent a telegram praying for an adjournment and explaining his inability to attend. This telegram, it appears, was receiver after the revision petition had been dismissed. In the circum stances, the High Court felt that there was no ground for restoration and dismissed the application. In doing so, however, it also referred to the fact that the petitioner had appeared personally before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and made a statement to the effect that the excess area allotted to him may be cancelled. This was obviously to show that the failure of the petitioner to attend the hearing of the revision petition to the High Court was deliberate. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal from both these orders. His application for leave to appeal from the order of the 13th of January 1971, which was files on the 17th May 1971, is barred by 43 day. The only explanation furnished foil the delay is that certified copies were delivered to him on 5‑5‑71.1 Eves so there is no explanation for the delay between the 5th to the 17th. He had to satisfactorily explain each day's delay and this he has failed to do. The petition is within time from the date of the order dismiss ing the miscellaneous application. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has admitted before us that the Power of Attorney of the learned counsel who was engaged to appear in the revision petition in the High Court had not been withdrawn. In the circumstances, he had no justification to plead want of instructions, for, in a revision petition on a point of law, no instructions from a client were necessary after the papers had been received, revision petition prepared and filed. In any event, the learned counsel then appear ing could well have asked for time. This also he did not do, but merely reported want of instructions. This was clearly delaying tactics, because, then fresh notices would have to be issued on the client personally and that would take time. Such notices were, in fact, issued and the client was duly served ; but even then, he did not appear on the appointed date. He says that he sent a telegram explaining his inability, but this telegram reached the Court after the petition had been dismissed. Therefore, it was of no use. In these circumstances, there was also no valid ground for restoration. The petition for restoration was, therefore, in our opinion, also rightly dismissed. The mere fact that in both these orders the High Court has men tioned that the petitioner had before the Additional Settlement Com missioner admitted that he was in possession of land in excess of the area to which he was lawfully entitled, does not show that the petitions bad been dismissed on merits. This reason has been added merely to show the lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere and dismiss this petition on merits, in so far as it is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order of the 2nd of March 1971. In so far as it is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order of the 13th of January 1971, it is dismissed both on merits and on the ground that it is b4rrpd by time by 43 days. Leave refused