States that Mian Muhammad Yousaf Umar, Advocate for the appellant is busy before another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. He however is unable to specify the Hon'ble Division Bench before whom the counsel for the appellant is busy at this time nor is he aware of the case in which Mian Yousaf Umar, Advocate is busy. Rana Muhammad Afzal, Advocate however states that Mian Yousaf Umar, Advocate will not be able to appear wherefor the case be adjourned.
2. We find the request for adjournment to be too vague and too unspecific to be acceptable.
Neither any general adjournment has been sought nor has any application or request specifying the case or the Hon'ble Bench has been made. The adjournment request as' made does not merit acceptance and is as such rejected.
3. The office has reported that the appellant has also failed to comply with orders, dated 5-1-2005 and 26-4-2005. The appellant, despite orders, has not provided fresh addresses of the respondents or the process fee-due in which notices could not be issued to the respondents. In response to this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant states that fresh addresses of the respondents along with the process were dropped in the "Box". The learned counsel could neither produce the requisite receipt not the diary number in respect thereto as the process fee or addresses etc. (as per office and registry procedure) are to be deposited at the specified counter against receipt or/and a diary number. The 'drop box' has been set up for urgent petitions etc. Furthermore, office itself has reported on the completion certificate, dated 13-6-2005 that the notices 'were not issued as the appellant had not provided the fresh addresses nor the process fee.