Application for restoration of appeal

2013 PLC 44 LABOUR-APPELLANT-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

S. 47Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecutionApplication for restoration of appealAppeal was pending adjudication before the High Court in absence of the TribunalAppeal was transferred to the Tribunal on its re-establishment

Appeal continued to be pending, but no one appeared on behalf of the appellant for more than one year and Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution

Appellant/ applicant went into deep slumber and filed an application for restoration of appeal almost after a year

Effect

Huge delay of more than one year had not at all been explained properly

Law required each day's delay to be explained, but no cogent or confidence inspiring explanation was given for such delay

Submission of counsel for appellant was that advocate who was incharge of the case prior to the entrustment of appeal to other counsel, did not properly pursue the matter and did not inform about the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution in time

Counsel had contended that delay being not intentional or deliberate, same could be condoned

Such contention was repelled as it was the requirement of law that if the counsel lately engaged in the case was not present, counsel engaged earlier should have taken charge of the case and should have appeared

Even otherwise, if the counsel for the appellant could not appear on the given date before the court, duty was cast upon the appellant to appear in the absence of counsel

Appellant was not absolved from appearance in the court

Applicant/appellant having failed to show any reasonable, cogent or plausible explanation for the absence of his counsel or for himself, application for restoration of appeal, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2013 CLC 254 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 5Suit of plaintiff was dismissed for non-prosecutionApplication for restoration of suitLimitationCondonation of delay

Contention of plaintiff was that he had suffered paralyses and was bed ridden and during that period could not contact his counsel

Validity-Said contention could 'not be accepted

When a party engaged counsel to represent it, the matter became the responsibility of the counsel and it was not the duty of the client to follow up his case in order to apprise the counsel

Plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary relief of the court

Applications for restoration of suit and condonation of delay were dismissed , in circumstances.