2022 PLP 560 (MLD)

RASHIDA ASAD, J.

Petitioner seeks recalling of order dated 29.08.2019, whereby the Petition was dismissed owing to gross negligence and non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel on the dates of hearings.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that he went to his native place, therefore, he could not inform the petitioner about the fixation of the captioned petition as his native place is Gilgit Baltistan where sometimes, the signals of cell phone do not remain available; that the Petitioner also remained unaware about the date of hearing, therefore, he could not appear before this Court hence he prayed for restoration of the instant petition at its original position.

3. Conversely, Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 has serious reservations as to the grant of prayer for restoration of the petition as, according to him, the conduct of the petitioner and his counsel has not been above board; the counsel preferred to go to his native place, rather informing the date of fixation of the petition to the petitioner. He further submitted that in such a situation the petition cannot be restored and the instant application filed by the petitioner merits dismissal. He placed reliance on a case reported as Ammanullah Soomro v. Pakistan International Air Lines Corporation through Managing Directors Chairman and another (2010 YLR 352).

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the record.

5. The perusal of record shows that petition was filed on 11.01.2019 and it was fixed in court on 16.01.2019 when this Court ordered for issuance of notice to the Respondent No.3. Thereafter, the instant petition was listed for orders as to non-prosecution on 08.02.2019, wherein the office indicated that notice could not be issued as costs were not paid. On the said date no one was present on behalf of the petitioner; Again the matter was listed on 05.03.2019 when counsel for the petitioner undertook to take necessary steps for issuance of notice to respondent No.3 in terms of order dated 16.01.2019. The matter was fixed on 26.04.2019 when counsel for the petitioner sought time "to go through the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 and to file rejoinder if any. However, on 07.08.2019, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and this Court specifically ordered that if none appeared on the next date, the petition shall be dismissed. Intimation notice was also issued to the counsel for the petitioner for next date i.e. 29.08.2019. Again on 29.08.2019, the matter was called twice, but neither petitioner nor his counsel put appearance, therefore, this Court passed the following order: "29.08.2029 None present for the appellant Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, advocate for respondent No.3.

The petitioner and his counsel were absent on 08.02.2019 .and 07.08.2019 and same is the position today. On the last date of hearing; it was observed that if none appears on the next date, the petition shall be dismissed. The matter has been called twice since morning, but the petitioners and his counsel remained absent on both occasions without any intimation although name of the counsel has appeared in the cause list. It appears that they have lost interest in pursuing this case which has been filed against concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. Accordingly, this petition and listed application are dismissed with no order as to costs.

6. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in his application that he was well aware about the date of the fixation of the captioned petition but he could not inform the petitioner as he had gone to his native place where according to hint sometimes signals remain available. The stance taken by learned counsel for the petitioner about his absence does not appear to carry any weight. It is observed, that it was professional obligation of learned counsel for the petitioner that he should have informed the petitioner about the date before about the date before leaving for native place and it was for the petitioner to have been vigilant in pursuing his case. In the case reported as Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din and others (1974 SCMR 162), it has been observed that mere engagement of a counsel by a party will not absolve him of his personal responsibility to pursue the matter vigilantly. Rightly reliance has been placed upon the case reported as Ammanullah Soomro v. Pakistan International Air Lines corporation through Managing Director/ Chairman and another (2010 YLR 352).

7. For the foregoing reasons, the listed application does not merit any consideration, the same is accordingly dismissed. SA/M-156/L Petition dismissed.