| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 121 2009 SLD 121 2009 PTCL 659 |
Lahore High Court
S.T.A. No. 111 of 2002, decision dated: 20-10-2008
MR., JUSTICE SYED HAMID ALI SHAH AND MR., JUSTICE MA. ZAFAR
Appellant by: Mr. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi.
Respondent by: Nemo
S.T.A. No. 111 of 2002, decision dated: 20-10-2008
MR., JUSTICE SYED HAMID ALI SHAH AND MR., JUSTICE MA. ZAFAR
Appellant by: Mr. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi.
Respondent by: Nemo
M/s. Kohinoor
VS
Collector
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 47
(SALES TAX ACT, 1990)]......Section 47..The counsel has remained negligent throughout in pursuance of review application, the cause of non-appearance on the day when the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution is not sufficient, application for restoration of review petition is therefore dismissed.--Review application came up for hearing before this Court on 30-4-2004 when none appeared on behalf of the applicant. The case was then fixed for 15-4-2004, 21-5-2008 and 24-6-2008 but principal learned counsel for the applicant was not in attendance. The applicant in his application has explained his non-appearance. Even when the counsel is engaged, the party has to explain its own absence. The absence of the party is not explained. It has been held in the case of Saifullah Siddiqui v. Karachi Electric Supplies Corporation Limited (1997 SCMR 926) that when absence of the party is not explained, dismissal of the matter for non-prosecution cannot be recalled. We are conscious that weight might be given to the difficulty of the counsel, who has to appear in various Courts in number of eases but when there is a case of negligence, it cannot be condoned. In this connection, reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Anwar Khan and another v. Muhammad Hashim and others (1995 SCMR 539). Miscalculation of time has been held in the case of Sundaresam Pillai v. Ramchandra Pillai (AIR 1943 Madras 36) as not to be sufficient cause. The counsel has remained negligent throughout in pursuance of these applications. The cause of non-appearance on the day when the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution is not sufficient, therefore, this application which has no merit is dismissed. Where the absence of party is not explained, dismissal of the matter for non-prosecution cannot be recalled. Weight might be given to the difficulty of the counsel, who has to appear in various Courts in number of cases but when there is a case of negligence, it cannot be condoned. ORDER MR. JUSTICE SYED HAMID ALI SHAH.-(1). An appeal under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act was preferred against judgment/order of the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 30-05-2002. The appeal…
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