P L D 1953 Lahore 56 (PLP)
Malik WAZIR MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1953 Lahore 56 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. R. Kayani, J |
| Parties | Malik WAZIR MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Appeal |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1953 Lahore 56 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Appeal as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1953 Lahore 56 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. R. Kayani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1953 Lahore 56 (PLP) (Malik WAZIR MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. A. Kareem for Appellant
Headnotes / Summary
Dismissed in default for Counsel's failure to appear by time allowed on request‑variation in time of Court clock and private watch‑Preference. Chaudhry Feroze‑ud‑Din and Muhammad Akram for Res pondent No. 1.
Judgment & Decree
KAYANI, J.‑--This appeal is from an order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore refusing to restore an appeal which was dismissed in default. The appeal was fixed for hearing on the 26th of May 1952, when the Court hours were from 7 a. m. to
12. Mr. Abdul Kareem, counsel for the appellant, had asked the Court to take up his case at 10‑30 a. m. as he would be away for some other work and the Court had promised to wait for him until 10‑30 a. m. The learned Senior Civil Judge finished his day's work at 10 a. m. but waited for Mr. Abdul Kareem until 10‑30 a. m. when he dismissed the appeal in default of appearance, At 10‑35 a. m. Mr. Abdul Kareem appeared and thereafter made an application for restoration claiming that he was present exactly at 10‑30 a. m. This claim has been repeated by him in the grounds of appeal also. I have no reason to prefer the statement of Mr. Abdul Kareem to that of the learned Judge, particularly when the latter waited for him for half an hour before dismissing the appeal. I am also of the opinion that Mr. Abdul Kareem has made this statement merely to justify his own position. In my presence, he gave the argument a somewhat different turn, namely, that in his watch the time was a minute before 10‑30, and I told him that Courts were guided by their own clocks, with which all private watches were expected to run in harmony. I strongly disapprove of statements which are intended to put a presiding officer in the wrong, merely to have an appeal restored. The time which had already been allowed to Mr. Abdul Kareem, was allowed as a matter of grace and he should have been present before 10‑30 a. m. Even then, I would not have been reluctant to restore the appeal if the question involved had not been one of judicial honesty. The appeal is dismissed with costs. A. H. Appeal dismissed.