1980 PLP 759 (SCMR)
Mian MUHAMMAD BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (IND.) AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 759 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (IND.) AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 759 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 759 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 759 (SCMR) (Mian MUHAMMAD BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (IND.) AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- --O. IX, r. 4 and Supreme Court Rules, (1956), O. IV, r. 23-Restora tion-Review petition dismissed for default-Advocate-on-Record, not withdrawing from case in accordance with rule 23, Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 1956-Advocate-on-Record responsible to appear on date of hearing-No separate intimation of date of hearing, held, required to be sent to petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 13th February, 1980.
- --O. IX, r. 4 and Supreme Court Rules, (1956), O. IV, r. 23‑Restora tion‑Review petition dismissed for default‑Advocate‑on‑Record, not withdrawing from case in accordance with rule 23, Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 1956‑Advocate‑on‑Record responsible to appear on date of hearing‑No separate intimation of date of hearing, held, required to be sent to petitioner.
- MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.‑As no one was present on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Review Petition No. 26‑R of 1979, it was dismissed for default on 5th of December, 1979. The petitioner has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 190‑R of 1979 seeking its restoration on the ground that as his Advocate‑on‑Record had withdrawn from the case, he ha no knowledge of the date of hearing and, therefore, he did not appeal to prosecute it on that date. We examined the record to ascertain if the Advocate‑on‑Record had in fact withdrawn from the case in accordance with rule 23, Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, but this is not so and, accordingly, it was his responsibility to appear on the date and no separate intimation of the date of hearing was required to be sent to the petitioner. This ground, therefore, fails. However, we would also observe here that the office should not have entertained this application in disregard of the rules and in future case should be taken to avoid such repetition.
Headnotes / Summary
Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.‑As no one was present on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Review Petition No. 26‑R of 1979, it was dismissed for default on 5th of December, 1979. The petitioner has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 190‑R of 1979 seeking its restoration on the ground that as his Advocate‑on‑Record had withdrawn from the case, he ha no knowledge of the date of hearing and, therefore, he did not appeal to prosecute it on that date. We examined the record to ascertain if the Advocate‑on‑Record had in fact withdrawn from the case in accordance with rule 23, Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, but this is not so and, accordingly, it was his responsibility to appear on the date and no separate intimation of the date of hearing was required to be sent to the petitioner. This ground, therefore, fails. However, we would also observe here that the office should not have entertained this application in disregard of the rules and in future case should be taken to avoid such repetition. Accordingly the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.