1989 PLP 479 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner who was a defendant in an original suit disposed of in the High Court of Sind, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30‑11‑1986 rejecting his Review Application. A civil suit was filed on the original side in the High Court in which the petitioner was proceeded against as defendant No.3. He engaged a counsel to defend him in the proceedings who died and was substituted by another who participated in the proceedings up to a stage but did not participate at the concluding stages with the result that a decree was passed against the defendants in the sum of Rs.1,68,000 on 31‑10‑1982. The petitioner filed an application dated 23‑10‑1984 under Order IX, Rule 13, read with section 151, C.P.C. seeking the setting aside of the judgment and decree on the ground that his duly authorised Advocate had let him down and not prosecuted the matter. This application was rejected by the learned Judge on the 13th of October, 1985 the reasons for which were recorded as hereunder on 22‑10‑1985:‑ "Even on his own admission, the applicant came to know about the decree on 13‑9‑1984 when notice was issued for attachment of his house. He still did not file application within 30 days. In either case the application is barred by limitation and no valid ground is made out for condoning the delay. Both the applications were therefore dismissed with no order as to costs, on 13‑10‑1985 by a short order. The above are reasons in support of the said order." An appeal was then filed against this order in the High Court which was dismissed with the observations as hereunder:‑‑ "We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We find that the reasons given by the learned Single Judge are not open to any question as not only the application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with Section 151, C.P.C. was time‑barred but the same was not even maintainable under the circumstances of the case. The grounds given by the appellant for condonation of delay were also not sufficient. Furthermore, the appellant has pleaded commission of fraud but no appropriate remedy was sought by him in that respect as well." It was against this order that a Review Application was filed and the. same has been dismissed observing as follows:‑‑ "Not only the same was time‑barred but it was also not maintainable under the circumstances of the case." This appeal is shown to be barred by 357 days against the Original Order of the High Court dated 4‑2‑1986 and within time from the order passed in Review. Therefore, the only matter that can be appropriately dealt with before us is the rejection of the Review Application. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us back to application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with section 151, C.P.C. for making out a case of setting aside the judgment and decree recorded by the learned trial Judge. That is not quite relevant at this stage. The review sought was, in the circumstances and facts of the case an effort get the matter reheard and in refusing review where rehearing was aimed at, the High Court committed no error as may prompt us to look further into it. In order to satisfy ourselves, we have considered the grievance of` the petitioner in all its depth and find that it is confined to the conduct exhibited by his own counsel in proceedings resulting in judgment and decree against him. Such a breach of confidence, even if taking place between the client and the counsel, would not justify the reopening of causes affecting other persons. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. MA.K./M‑650/5 Leave refused.