Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 11-Dismissal of appeal for default in appearance-Mere fact that litigant had engaged counsel to appear on his behalf does not absolve him of all respon­sibilities-Ground mentioned in application for restoration found to be untrue-Court, justified in refusing restoration. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine an appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the same High Court refusing to restore a second appeal dismissed on the 29th of march 1973, for default. The second appeal which was dismissed for default was dismissed for default was from an order of an Additional District Judge, Lyallpur, affirming the order of a Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed as no one appeared when it was called on. Subsequently, an application was made for the restoration of the appeal on the ground that the learned counsel who had been given the brief by the learned counsel engaged by the petitioner had contacted the Reader of the Court on the 28th and the 29th of March 1973, and had been told that there was little chance of-the case reaching for hearing on those days. He left the Court under this impression. The Reader, when examined by the Court denied having given any such information to any learned Advocate. The learned Advocate concerned was then called and he too admitted that be had not contacted the Reader as alleged in the restoration petition but his Clerk had told him a day earlier that the case had been adjourned as left over and would come up in the following week. Since the statement made by the learned counsel was contrary to the ground taken in the application for restoration, the learned Judge refused to restore the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492