| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1786 2017 SLD 1786 2017 CLC 1727 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. S-309 of 2004, decision & hearing Date : 20-04-2016
NAZAR AKBAR, JUSTICE
Naeem Suleman for Petitioners.
Constitutional Petition No. S-309 of 2004, decision & hearing Date : 20-04-2016
NAZAR AKBAR, JUSTICE
Naeem Suleman for Petitioners.
MANZOOR AHMED AND 11 OTHERS
VS
SHOUKAT PAPER MART THROUGH PROPRIETOR AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition dismissed for non-prosecution---Restoration of---Sufficient cause---Affidavit of counsel---Scope---Affidavit of counsel for showing 'sufficient cause' for restoration of a lis dismissed for non-prosecution to explain his absence on a particular date was not enough---Petitioner and his counsel had to show whether their conduct was fair and they were honestly vigilant---Counsel for the petitioner was neither careful nor he had been vigilant to pursue the present constitutional petition---Affidavit of the counsel alone could not be treated as a 'sufficient cause'---Restoration application was dismissed in circumstances---Nazir of the Court was directed to ensure recovery of cost imposed on the petitioner. Abdul Latif v. Muhammad Yousuf and 2 others PLD 1996 Kar. 365 distinguished. Mst. Haleema Tahir and 5 others v. Mst. Naheed Ijaz and 3 others 2010 MLD 554 and Muhammad Feroz Punjani v. Syed Badshah Hussain PLD 2014 Sindh 70 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: NAZAR AKBAR, JUSTICE:---.--- The Petitioner through listed application seeks restoration of the petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27-10-2015. By order dated 21.10.2015 the learned counsel for the petitioner was warned that this petition will be dismissed with cost if he fails to proceed with the case on 27.10.2015. On 27.10.2015 when this case was called at the time fixed in the earlier order, learned counsel for the petitioner was absent therefore it was kept aside and again taken up at 1:00 p.m. Even at 1:00 p.m. he did not turn up and send Mr. Kashan, advocate to hold brief. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the only ground raised by him for restoration of this petition is that he has filed his personal affidavit which has gone unrebutted. In support of his contention he has relied on the case of Abdul Latif v. Muhammad Yousuf and 2 others reported as PLD 1996 Kar. 365. 3. The Petitioner has not even deposited the cost imposed by the court and has filed restoration application. Not a single application for urgent hearing was filed with the application for restoration of this petition. The counsel even after…
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