2004 PLP 862 (SCMR)

Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.468‑K and 469‑K of 2002, decided on 13th May, 2002. ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Administration of justice‑‑‑Restoration of Constitutional petition dismissed for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Absence of counsel ‑‑‑Effect‑‑ Conduct of counsel may be reprehensible, ends of substantial justice demand that the parties should not suffer on account of negligence or indifferent attitude on the part of their counsel, in whom they repose full confidence and it is a matter of mutual trust between a client and counsel‑‑‑Affidavit of delinquent counsel was not submitted before High Court and the same had been filed for the first time explaining reasons for non‑appearance before the Supreme Court‑‑‑Supreme Court in order to ensure that the cause was decided on merits and to do complete justice between the parties, granted leave to appeal, converted the petition into appeal and allowed the same subject to payment of compensatory costs to the respondent. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi Advocate Supreme Court with Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. K.A. Wahab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th May, 2002. RANA BHAGWANDAS, J. ‑‑‑Petitioners seek leave to appeal against High Court order dated 7‑3‑2002 refusing to restore Civil Petition Nos.D‑225 and 607 of 1995 dismissed for non‑prosecution owing to gross neglect and non‑appearance of the petitioners' counsel on the date of hearing.

2. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, besides urging various grounds in support of the prayer for restoration of the petitions and adjudication thereof on merits, pointed out that dispute between the parties relates to the transfer of more than 80 acres of valuable cultivatable land, situated in District Naushahro Feroze.

3. Conversely, Mr. K.A. Wahab, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the respondent has serious reservations as to the grant of prayer for restoration of the petition as, according to him, the conduct of the petitioners and their counsel has not been above board in that the counsel preferred to appear before the Court of Senior Civil Judge rather than the Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad.

4. Be that as it may, conduct of the counsel may be reprehensible, ends of substantial justice demand that the parties should not suffer on account of negligence or indifferent attitude on the part of their counsel, in whom they repose full confidence. Indeed it is a matter of mutual trust between a client and counsel. On merits, we are not impressed with the grounds urged in support of the petitions, inasmuch as, affidavit of delinquent counsel was not submitted before the Division Bench of the High Court, which has been filed for the first time explaining reasons for non‑appearance before this Court, but in order to ensure that the cause is decided on merits and to do complete justice between the parties, we grant leave to appeal, convert these petitions into appeals and allow the same subject, however, to the payment of Rs.25,000 by way of compensatory costs to the respondents in each of the petition within thirty days from today, failing which petitions shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

5. On the joint request of the parties counsel, High Court is required to decide the petitions on priority basis and make all endeavours to dispose of the same on merits before 30 June, 2002, provided both the counsel co‑operate with the Court. Mr. Mangi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners assures that there will be no prayer for adjournment on behalf of his clients to which Mr. K.A. Wahab fully agrees. M.H./N‑96/S Order accordingly.