| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 594 1991 SLD 594 = 1991 PLD 1082 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 337 of 1989, decision dated: 12-06-1991.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. AND SAAD SAOOD, JAN, J.
Abdul Maajid Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.Shamim Abbas Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record.
Civil Appeal No. 337 of 1989, decision dated: 12-06-1991.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. AND SAAD SAOOD, JAN, J.
Abdul Maajid Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.Shamim Abbas Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record.
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB vsMessrs Syed SHAFIQUE AHMED (Registered)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 0. XLI, Rr. 17 & 19
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 185(3)
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--0. XLI, Rr. 17 & 19 --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--�Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution by appellant --- Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the statement of the counsel if not found false, could be considered a valid cause for restoration; and the same having been shown as a mistake in the estimate of timings by the counsel when appearing in the same Court before two Benches, whether could be treated as good ground for refusal to restore.CP-520/84 (decided on 22-2-1989); CP-892/84 (decided on 18-3-1989) CP-675/85 (decided on 27-3-1989); PLD 1966 SC 461 (Jan Muhammad v. Abdul Ghafoor); PLD 1966 SC 467 (Salamat Bibi v. Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner); Jan Muhammad v. Muhammad Asghar (PLD 1981 SC 513) ref.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------ 0. XLI, Rr. 17 & 19 --- Appeal by Provincial Government --- Huge amount of public money was involved in the case --- Dismissal of appeal by High Court for non-prosecution by appellant --- application for restoration was rejected by the High Court holding that appellant and the counsel for appellant as well as the representatives of the Appellant Department responsible for prosecuting the appeal, were negligent --- Supreme Court, while upholding the findings of the Court that counsel for appellant as well as the representatives of the Appellant. Department for prosecuting the appeal were negligent directed that steps should be taken by the Chief Minister of the province who was also responsible to the public exchequer, at a very respectable level say at the level of the Secretary t the Government, to take positive effective measures for recovery of the entire amount involved in the loss in dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution --- Such recovery should be made, amongst others, from the lawyer concerned, from the departmental representatives who were found responsible for not arranging appearance in addition to the expected appearance of the counsel --- Recovery fairness should be proportionate to the responsibility of each individual; the highest from lawyer; because he acted as an ultimate custodian and…