2002 PLP 1940 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 114, O. III, R.4 & O.XLVII, R.1‑‑‑Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, R.166‑‑‑Review of judgment‑‑‑Counsel not engaged for outstation‑‑‑Revision petition was allowed by High Court ex parte against the petitioners as their counsel endorsed on the summons issued to him by High Court that he was not counsel to defend the case at principal seat at place "P"‑‑‑Review application was filed to set aside the judgment passed in revision petition against the present petitioners‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Counsel was supposed to appear and it was his duty to inform his client about the date of hearing of the petition‑‑‑Not a valid ground for non‑appearance of the counsel that he was engaged only to appear before Bench of High Court at place "D"‑‑‑Appointment of an Advocate continues till it is terminated by either side but of course with the leave of the Court under O.III, R.4(2), C.P.C.‑‑‑Proper course for the counsel was to have applied in writing seeking permission to withdraw from the case‑‑‑High Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed against the petitioner in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Review petition was dismissed in circumstances. Rehmatullah v. Abdullah and others NLR 1980 UC 347 ref. Nemo for Petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner (Mr. Saadullah Khan, Advocate) has recorded a note on the reverse of the summon issued by this Court to the effect that he was not counsel to defend the case of the petitioner at Peshawar. Order 3, rule 5, C.P.C. provides that any process served on the pleader of a party or left at the office or ordinary residence of such pleader and whether the same is for personal appearance of the party or not, shall be presumed to be duly communicated and made known to the party whom the pleader represents, unless the Court otherwise directs, shall be effective for all purposes as if the same had been served on the party in person. It was the duty of the learned counsel to have immediately informed his client. Rule 166 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976 cast duty on an Advocate to appear in Court. when the matter is called and if it is not possible to make satisfactory alternative arrangements. The learned counsel was supposed to appear and it was also his duty, to inform his client about the date of hearing of the petition. Again, this is hardly any ground for non‑appearance that he was engaged for D.I. Khan. Similar question came up for consideration in the case of Rehmatullah v. Abdullah and others NLR. 1980 UC 347, wherein it was pleaded that Mr. Amjad Khan was appointed as a counsel for hearing, acting and pleading at Lahore and not for Circuit Bench. Bahawalpur, therefore, the petitioner was not served and dismissal was not proper. The argument was repelled with reference to Order III, rule 5 of the C.P.C. and it was held that the counsel was bound to appear. Let me also refer to the provisions of Order III, rule 4(2) of the C.P.C., the appointment of a pleader or an Advocate shall be deemed to be in force unless determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the party or the pleader or until the client or pleader dies. Appointment of an Advocate continues till it is terminated by either side but of course with the leave of the Court. The proper course for the learned counsel was to have applied in writing seeking permission to withdraw from the case. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./545/P Revision petition dismissed.