Law:

Section:

  Administration of justice--- ---- Attempt by some unscrupulous litigants aided or unaided by their agents to avoid hearing before one Bench and prefer another Bench of the same Court deprecated---Supreme Court observed that it was very unfortunate and effort should be made particularly by the responsible lawyers to discourage same. Administration of justice--- Dismissal of lis for non-prosecution etc.---Application for restoration--Court to allow benefit of miscalculation. misunderstanding, mistiming or even misinformation---Such human innocent failings if were permitted to be relied upon as explanations by ordinary individuals and litigants, the lawyers were also entitled to due consideration in dti-, behalf. Jan Muhammad v. Muhammad Asghar PLD 1981 SC 513; Jamal Din v. Ramzan 1982 SCMR 471 and Mst. Baigan v. Abdul Hakeem 1982 SCMR 673 ref. Administration of justice-- ' ----Dismissal of lis for non-prosecution etc.---Application for restoration---If a lawyer was found amiss and misconduct was beyond any reasonable doubt, there was nothing which would prevent the Court to pass any order which was deemed fit and in that eventuality even the dismissal of the cause, would be justified Ch. M. Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Ch. Ata Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th February, 1992. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the refusal by the High Court to restore the appellant's Civil Revision which had earlier been dismissed for non-prosecution. . The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the. appellant who was defendant in a suit for possession had tiled a civil revision in the High Court against the appellate judgment confirming a decree passed in favour of respondent/plaintiff. This revision was fixed for hearing on 11.-4-1990 but it could not be disposed of on that day and the case was adjourned to 14-4-1990. The appellant's counsel had by an earlier application of 9-4-1990 sought and obtained general adjournment from 14-4-1990 to 25-4-1990:…