Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XLI, r. 19

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XLI, r. 19-Appeal, readmission of-Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution -Restoration sought on ground of default due to negligence of counsel and no negligence on appellant's part-Con tention without force-Mere engagement of counsel does not absolve litigant of all his responsibilities-Party as well as counsel both bound to see appeal properly and diligently prosecuted- Counsel engaged, if lacking fn his sense of responsibility to Court, opposite-party cannot be made to suffer on that account. Date of hearing : 25th June 1973.                                                                                                                JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to peal from an order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine an appeal from an order of a learned :jingle 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 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 Curt denied having given any such information to any learned Advocate. The learned Advocate concerned was then called and he too admitted that he had not contacted the Reader as alleged in the restoration petition…