P L D 1991 Supreme Court 464 (PLP)

Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 (in Civil Appeals Nos.477 and 488 of 1980). Fazal Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 (in Civil Appeals Nos. 485 and 486 of 1980). Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 (in Civil Appeal No.471 of 1980). Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 (in Civil Appeal No.475 of 1980). MA.Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 (in Civil Appeal No.479 of 1980). Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1991. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑These cases are very old. In fact the petitions were filed in 1975 while the leave to appeal was granted in 1980. On the directions of the Chief Justice the office has for some time tried to take out old cases which were suffering neglect for long time. Not only this, those from amongst them which are very old and in particular relate to public revenues and/or otherwise emergent, are being paid special attention. This is well known to the litigant parties therein as well as the gentlemen of the Bar generally and also through notices and lists thereof issued from time to time. In this set of cases public revenues being involved besides the leave to appeal was granted to examine a very important question of law relating to the vires, of Rule 50 of the Income Tax Rules 1972, vis‑a‑vis, the Income Tax Act 1922. Over and above this the Chief Justice had in particular directed the Registrar to prepare and fix these cases for special disposal after specially informing the A.O.R. concerned. The learned A.O.R. is faithfully present but as it usually happens in such like old cases and particularly those which relate to collection of public revenue, he has made request for adjournment on the stated ground that despite his having informed the learned counsel who was to argue the appeals, the latter has not turned up. When questioned, as to whether he himself is prepared to argue the appeals he frankly stated that he had not prepared, though it is not denied by him that it was also his duty under the prevalent law and Rules of this Court to prepare these appeals. To be fair to him he, however, offered to now prepare while reading the relevant records in this Court. This obviously can neither be treated as preparation nor assistance of any value in such an important matter. It has also to be pointed out that seeking of adjournment in the Court of apex is treated so casual by the parties, the A.O.Rs. and some times the counsel as well; as if, it was a trial Court. Though in the lower Courts also such a practice should be deprecated but the case with regard to Supreme Court is different. Here the system is almost fool proof. The importance which naturally is attachable to a verdict at the apex cannot permit either casualness or lethargy what to talk of negligence. The performance of the Court has suffered immensely on this and such like other practices which would be considered unimaginable in the Courts of apex in some of the civilized countries. Accordingly, in order to save litigants from torture of delays particularly those through adjournments sought by their counsel or due to lack of preparation, it has now been decided to treat such like cases as examples of lack of diligence and glaring non‑prosecution. The learned A.O.R. having been told so remained unable to plead any legal defence to such a course of action. To be fair to him again he continued begging for concession for his counsel and for his clients. This, however, cannot change the legal position. As shown above no live interest having been shown for the prosecution of these appeals for disposal they are dismissed for non‑prosecution. However, as public revenues are involved and public exchequer belonging to the innocent citizens is involved, it is left open for the appellants to seek revival if so advised and if the subject‑matter of these appeals is still alive; after the passage of nearly two decades from the time when the matter was brought before the High Court in its Writ jurisdiction. There shall be no order as to costs. M.B.A./C‑79/S????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.