P L D 1995 Karachi 221 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AZIM JEHLAMI‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. TASHRIF K14ATOON and 7 others‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1995 Karachi 221 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑‑S. 21‑‑‑ Dismissal of appeal‑‑‑Restoration‑‑‑ Appeal having been dismissed for non‑prosecution, appellant filed application for restoration/re‑hearing of appeal seven months after its dismissal, contending that he had taken away file from his counsel for getting photostat copies prepared and that file was retained by him during which period matter came up for hearing in Court and appeal was dismissed for non‑prosecution on account of his absence and that of his counsel and that he had engaged another counsel and has filed application for restoration of appeal‑‑‑Affidavit of appellant did not show dates on which he had taken away file from his previous counsel nor did it mention the date when he came to learn about dismissal of his appeal‑‑‑Once an Advocate was engaged and filed his Vakalatnama in Court he was under an obligation, rather duty bound to appear on. behalf of his client in Court unless his Vakalatnama was withdrawn with permission from Court, however, a client was also under an obligation to keep himself abreast of the proceedings in the Court and to remain in touch with his Advocate‑‑‑Gross negligence on part of appellant was committed for he had taken away file from his counsel whereby obvious inference that could be drawn by counsel was that party was rescinding authority given to him by' his client ‑‑‑Reasons advanced by appellant for restoration and rehearing of his appeal thus could not be termed to be sufficient or good cause to condone his absence. p. 222 A |
| Bench Members | Abdul Rahim Kazi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZIM JEHLAMI‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. TASHRIF K14ATOON and 7 others‑‑‑ Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1995 Karachi 221 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1995 Karachi 221 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑‑S. 21‑‑‑ Dismissal of appeal‑‑‑Restoration‑‑‑ Appeal having been dismissed for non‑prosecution, appellant filed application for restoration/re‑hearing of appeal seven months after its dismissal, contending that he had taken away file from his counsel for getting photostat copies prepared and that file was retained by him during which period matter came up for hearing in Court and appeal was dismissed for non‑prosecution on account of his absence and that of his counsel and that he had engaged another counsel and has filed application for restoration of appeal‑‑‑Affidavit of appellant did not show dates on which he had taken away file from his previous counsel nor did it mention the date when he came to learn about dismissal of his appeal‑‑‑Once an Advocate was engaged and filed his Vakalatnama in Court he was under an obligation, rather duty bound to appear on. behalf of his client in Court unless his Vakalatnama was withdrawn with permission from Court, however, a client was also under an obligation to keep himself abreast of the proceedings in the Court and to remain in touch with his Advocate‑‑‑Gross negligence on part of appellant was committed for he had taken away file from his counsel whereby obvious inference that could be drawn by counsel was that party was rescinding authority given to him by' his client ‑‑‑Reasons advanced by appellant for restoration and rehearing of his appeal thus could not be termed to be sufficient or good cause to condone his absence. p. 222 A bench comprising: Abdul Rahim Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1995 Karachi 221 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AZIM JEHLAMI‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. TASHRIF K14ATOON and 7 others‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dilawar Hussain for Appellant
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Sindh Rent Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 21‑‑‑ Dismissal of appeal‑‑‑Restoration‑‑‑ Appeal having been dismissed for non‑prosecution, appellant filed application for restoration/re‑hearing of appeal seven months after its dismissal, contending that he had taken away file from his counsel for getting photostat copies prepared and that file was retained by him during which period matter came up for hearing in Court and appeal was dismissed for non‑prosecution on account of his absence and that of his counsel and that he had engaged another counsel and has filed application for restoration of appeal‑‑‑Affidavit of appellant did not show dates on which he had taken away file from his previous counsel nor did it mention the date when he came to learn about dismissal of his appeal‑‑‑Once an Advocate was engaged and filed his Vakalatnama in Court he was under an obligation, rather duty bound to appear on. behalf of his client in Court unless his Vakalatnama was withdrawn with permission from Court, however, a client was also under an obligation to keep himself abreast of the proceedings in the Court and to remain in touch with his Advocate‑‑‑Gross negligence on part of appellant was committed for he had taken away file from his counsel whereby obvious inference that could be drawn by counsel was that party was rescinding authority given to him by' his client ‑‑‑Reasons advanced by appellant for restoration and rehearing of his appeal thus could not be termed to be sufficient or good cause to condone his absence. [p. 222] A
Judgment & Decree
This application has been moved for, restoration/re‑hearing of the appeal which has been dismissed for non‑prosecution on 1‑6‑1994. The application has been moved on 4‑1‑1995, more than seven months after the dismissal. The plea taken by the appellant in his affidavit filed in support of this application is that he had taken away the file from his counsel for getting the photostat copies prepared; and that the file was retained by him during which period the matter came up for hearing in the Court and the appeal was dismissed for non‑prosecution on account of his absence and that of his Advocate. Now he has engaged another Advocate and filed this application. The affidavit of the appellant does not show the dates on which he had taken away the file from his previous Advocate nor does it mention the date when he came to learn about the dismissal of the appeal. The contention of Mr. Dilawar Hussain, learned counsel appearing for appellant is that it was the duty cast upon the Advocate for the appellant to have appeared in the Court on date of hearing even though case file had been taken away by the appellant. No doubt, once an Advocate is engaged and files his Vakalatnama in Court he 'is under an obligation, rather duty‑bound, to appear on behalf of his client in the Court unless his Vakalatnama L withdrawn with permission from the Court. However, it may be observed that at the same time a client is also under an obligation to keep himself abreast of the proceedings in the Court and has to remain in touch with his Advocate. In the present matter, it is a case of sheer negligence on the part of the appellant himself. Admittedly, he had taken away the file from his Advocate whereby the obvious inference that could be drawn by the Advocate is that the party is rescinding the authority given to the Advocate. In these circumstances, the reasons advanced by the appellant cannot be termed to be a sufficient or good cause to condone his absence. However, if the appellant has any grievance against his Advocate, the remedy open would be to sue a counsel for damages, if such circumstances arise. The application is dismissed. 2.Dismissed as infructuous N.H.Q./M‑2048/K Application dismissed