P L D 1989 Lahore 537 (PLP)

This is a petition for restoration of Civil Revision No.12/83 filed by the petitioner, M. Noor Elahi, against the respondent, National Bank of Pakistan. The Civil Revision was fixed for 21st January, 1989. On that date, it was first called on 9‑30 a. m. when no one turned up to prosecute it. Then, after tea‑break, the second call was made at 11‑30 a. m. when position was the same. Learned counsel for the respondent was, however, present. The civil revision was, therefore, dismissed in default.

2. Reasons given for non‑prosecution of the civil revision on the said date are that clerk of learned counsel for the petitioner omitted to notice the case on the cause list for the above date and that the name of learned counsel was not properly printed in the said list. In this connection, it was contended by learned counsel for the respondent that omission to note the case in the cause list or the non‑appearance of the name of the counsel on the list is no ground for restoration of the cane. He placed reliance on Punjab Province v. Malik Muhammad Azam 1981 CLC 1475 (Lahore), Halim Ali and others v. Dilbar Muhammad and others 1982 SCMR 170, Zulfiqar Alt v. Lal Din and another 1974 SCMR 162 and Sawab Khan v. Dr. Abdul Hamid Khan PLD 1968 Lah. 1224. No authority was cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. As for entries in the cause list in question, name of learned counsel for the petitioner is correctly printed therein as Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi. Strangely enough, the word "Qureshi", which is fairly prominent in photostat copy of the cause list available in my office is dim in the photostat copy of the list filed by learned counsel for the petitioner. I can't say why it is so. Names of the parties and other particulars of the case are, however, correct and clear in both the copies. In the case of Halim Ali and others, cited by learned counsel for the respondent, it was held that if particulars of a case are rightly given in the list, it is the duty of the counsel to take notice of the case even if his name does not appear in the list. Similar observations were made in the case of Punjab Province which too was relied upon by him. Although the facts of the said two cases under report are not exactly the same as those of the case in hand yet the principle propounded therein, namely, that if particulars of a cases are rightly mentioned in the cause list it is sufficient notice to the counsel about the fixation thereof even though his name does hot appear alongwith such particulars, is fully applicable to the case before me because its particulars, as given in the cause list, were more than sufficient to convey to learned counsel for the petitioner that the case had been fixed for the date on which it was dismissed in default. As already stated, in the cause list in question, besides particulars of the case, name of learned counsel for the petitioner had also been printed. In the copy of the list produced lay him the word "Qureshi", which constitutes part of his name, i.e. Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, is somewhat dim but it can be deciphered without much difficulty. Position of the cause list in the instant case is, therefore, much better than the cause lists involved in the cited cases of Halim Ali and others and Punjab Province. I am, therefore, unable to accept the plea that the case in question could not be noticed due to non‑printing of necessary particulars in the cause list.

4. I repeatedly asked learned counsel for the respondent if he would like the case to. be restored on payment of costs but he did not agree. He says that a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondent due to negligence of the petitioner and his learned counsel in prosecuting the case and that he does not want the respondent to be deprived thereof. It is also difficult for me to exercise my discretion in such a way as to take away from him that valuable right without any fault on the part of the respondent. Even if it is learned counsel for the petitioner and not the petitioner himself, who is to blame for the dismissal of civil revision, it would make little difference because latest trend of rulings by the Supreme Court is that if a party has engaged a counsel who is lacking in his sense of responsibility to the Court, the opposite party cannot be made to suffer on that account. Cases of Zulfiqar Ali and Sawab Khan, referred to above, are some of the authorities in point.

5. In view of the above discussion, I have no option but to express my inability to restore the civil revision. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./M‑1527/L Application dismissed.