| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 2083 1992 SLD 2083 1992 PLJ 131 |
Lahore High Court
FA.O. No.249 of 1991, dismissed on 8.12.1991 (Approved for reporting on 13.1.1992.) Date of hearing: 8.12.1991.
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J
Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate for Appellant.
FA.O. No.249 of 1991, dismissed on 8.12.1991 (Approved for reporting on 13.1.1992.) Date of hearing: 8.12.1991.
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J
Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate for Appellant.
RIAZ AHMAD--Appellant
VS
GHULAM AHMAD---Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 19
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)- —O.XLI R. 19--Appeal--Dismissal in default of~Restoration of~Refusal to restore-Challenge to~Since unavoidable reasons have not been spelt out, plea is a vague assertion-There is no affidavit of appellants counsel or of his clerk with regard to engagement before other Courts—It was duty of learned counsel for appellant to take as much care of appellants appeal as of other cases booked by him-Particulars of cases in which learned counsel for appellant was appearing at three occasions when appellants appeal was called, have not been furnished-Held: There is no convincing explanation with regard to absence of appellant or his counsel-Appeal dismissed. [P.132]A,BC 1974SCMR162/Y?/. ORDER This appeal is directed against order, dated the 21st July, 1991, passed by ChAhsan Ahmad, Additional District Judge, Faisalabad. By the said order, he refused to restore an appeal, filed by the appellant, Riaz Ahmad, which had been dismissed in default. 2. The appellants appeal came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge on 20th February, 1990. On that day, the appeal was called on thrice - once at 10 A.M., then at 12.30 P.M. and lastly at 3.00 P.M., but no one turned up to prosecute it although the respondent, Ghulam Ahmad, was present on all the three occasions when the appeal was called on. In the application made by the appellant for restoration of the appeal it was stated by him that he could not enter appearance due to certain unavoidable reasons and his counsel was busy before the other Courts. His explanation did not find favour with the learned Additional District Judge with the result that he declined to re-admit the appeal for hearing and dismissed the application. 3. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had to come from Sargodha and was late in reaching the Court. As for his counsel, his plea was that he was busy before the other Courts. 4. 4. In the aforesaid application also, it had been stated…
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