1994 PLP 720 (SCMR)
Mst. SHUKARIA PERVEEN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CUSTODIAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 720 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and |
| Parties | Mst. SHUKARIA PERVEEN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CUSTODIAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 720 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 720 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 720 (SCMR) (Mst. SHUKARIA PERVEEN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CUSTODIAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑O. XVI, R. 6‑‑‑Restoration of review petition dismissed for non -prosecution‑‑‑ Advocate‑on‑Record though made request for adjournment of case yet without waiting for orders passed on the application for adjournment, absenting himself on the date of hearing‑‑‑Advocate‑on‑Record was under wrong notion to assume that when counsel for both parties agree on adjournment, case would stand automatically adjourned‑‑‑Held, until the Court had accepted such request and granted adjournment prayed for, parties were bound to appear before the Court on the date fixed‑‑‑Request for adjournment having not been accepted, parties were not absolved from appearing in Court on fixed date‑‑‑No one being present on behalf of petitioner while counsel for respondent was present, case was rightly dismissed for non‑prosecution‑‑‑No sufficient grounds for restoration of review application having been made out same was not restored.
- Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Senior Advocate for Respondents Nos. 146, 162,163 and 167.
- 2. In support of the Review Petition it is submitted that Khwaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner in Civil Review Petition No. 71‑L of 1992 (Haji Muhammad Saleem etc. v. Mst. Maryam Bibi etc.) which was fixed alongwith the present Review Petition, for 24‑10‑1993, applied for adjournment of the case. It is further alleged that the Advocate‑on‑Record alongwith other Advocate‑on‑Record gave his consent to the adjournment, on Thursday, 21‑10‑1993. The next day being Friday the A.O.R. for petitioner enquired from Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record on Saturday (23‑10‑1993) as to whether the cases had been adjourned or not on his request. Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad informed the petitioner that according to a message received from Islamabad, the case had been adjourned. Accordingly neither counsel nor the A.O.R. of the petitioner put up appearance before this Court. In these circumstances it is prayed that Review Petition No. 70‑L of 1992 dismissed for non‑prosecution on 24‑10‑1993 may be restored, heard and decided on merits.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ. ‑‑‑This is a petition seeking restoration of the Review Petition (C.R.P. 70/L/92) filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed for non‑ prosecution vide order dated 24‑10‑1993.
2. In support of the Review Petition it is submitted that Khwaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner in Civil Review Petition No. 71‑L of 1992 (Haji Muhammad Saleem etc. v. Mst. Maryam Bibi etc.) which was fixed alongwith the present Review Petition, for 24‑10‑1993, applied for adjournment of the case. It is further alleged that the Advocate‑on‑Record alongwith other Advocate‑on‑Record gave his consent to the adjournment, on Thursday, 21‑10‑1993. The next day being Friday the A.O.R. for petitioner enquired from Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record on Saturday (23‑10‑1993) as to whether the cases had been adjourned or not on his request. Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad informed the petitioner that according to a message received from Islamabad, the case had been adjourned. Accordingly neither counsel nor the A.O.R. of the petitioner put up appearance before this Court. In these circumstances it is prayed that Review Petition No. 70‑L of 1992 dismissed for non‑prosecution on 24‑10‑1993 may be restored, heard and decided on merits.
3. We do not agree. The ground urged in support of the application for review, in our opinion, cannot be considered as sufficient for ordering restoration of the case. Merely because the counsel for both the parties agree that a case fixed for hearing on a particular date by this Court should be adjourned to some other date does not imply that the case shall be necessarily adjourned, absolving the party from attending the Court on the date fixed, because until and unless orders have been passed by the Court to adjourn the' case it cannot be presumed that the case has actually been adjourned. It is a wrong notion to assume that when counsel for both the parties agree to an adjournment, the case stands automatically adjourned. Accordingly until the Court has accepted the request and granted the adjournment prayed for, the parties are bound to appear before the Court on the date fixed. It is only if the request of adjournment has actually been granted that parties are absolved from appearing on the date fixed for the hearing of the matter. In this case the. request for adjournment had not so far been granted, when the case came up' for hearing on 24‑10‑1993.
4. As none was present in this case on behalf of the petitioner while counsel of the respondent `vas present on the said date, the case was dismissed for non‑prosecution. The reasons given for the absence of the petitioner in this case cannot, as explained above, be considered sufficient to condone the default. Dismissed. AA./S‑826/S Petition dismissed.