C.M. No,176-C of 2004 ' MUHMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---On 24-2-2004, this civil revision was dismissed by passing the following order:- "The case has been repeatedly called. Neither the petitioners nor any of their learned counsel have appeared to prosecute this case. A person claiming to be the Clerk of Mr. Mansoor-ul-Islam Joyya, Advocate has sought adjournment on the ground that Mr. Mansoor-ul-Islam Joyya, Advocate has settled abroad.
2. I am afraid, the case was previously adjourned on this ground on 6-6-2002, 12-9-2002 and 9-10- 2002. Even on initial dates of 7-2-2001 and 29-8-2001, no one appeared for the petitioners. A However, on 9-10-2002, Ch. Naeem Tariq Sangheera, Advocate filed his power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner in place of Mr. Mansoor-ul-Islam Joyya, Advocate, who is stated to have settled abroad.
3. In view thereof, there is no reason to adjourn the case on the request of Mr. Mansoor-ul-Islam, Advocate who has been replaced.
4 As recorded above, neither the petitioners nor their learned counsel have appeared pursuant to a number of calls. Dismissed along with all applications."
2. After the above said order, the petitioners changed their learned counsel and engaged Raja Ghulam Hassan Khan, Advocate.
3. The present C.M. No,176-C of 2004 has been filed by the petitioners through Raja Ghulam Hassan Khan, Advocate to seek restoration of the civil revision on specific grounds in paras.2 and 4 by stating that due to negligence of the petitioners' counsel in not informing the petitioners of the date fixed by the Court and for non-appearance of the learned counsel, the case was dismissed by this Court. The same ground has been urged from the Bar with emphasise that it was not petitioner's personal fault but the fault was that of their previous learned counsel.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. As recorded in order dated 24-2-2004, initially Mr. Mansoor-ul-Islam, Advocate was engaged by the petitioners to file the present civil revision. Though no record has been placed on Courts file but the case was repeatedly adjourned on the request on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Mansoorul-Islam Joyya, Advocate on the ground that he had settled abroad. On 12-9-2002, Faqir Muhammad appeared in person and sought adjournment on the ground that Mr. Mansoor-ul-Islam Joyya, Advocate has settled abroad and would be back in a week's time. Adjournment was granted. However, on 9-10- 2002, power of attorney on behalf of the petitioners was filed by Ch. Naeem Tariq Sangheera, Advocate on the ground that Mr. Mansoor-ul-Islam Joyya, Advocate had gone abroad. On the request, the case was adjournment. On 24-2-2004, again request for adjournment was made on the ground that Mr. Mansoorul-Islam Joyya, Advocate had settled abroad. It was thus taken note of in the said order that the case had been adjourned on 6-6-2002, 12-9-2002 and 9-10-2002 on the same ground. And that even on initial dates of 7-2-2001 and 29-8-2001, no one had appeared for the petitioners but the case was adjourned in the interest of justice. It was further noted that Ch.Naeem Tariq, Advocate had filed his power of attorney on behalf of the petitioners on 9-10- 2002. As such, there were two powers of attorney on the record. None of the said learned counsel for the petitioner had applied either for revocation of the powers of attorney or for their withdrawal from the case. Furthermore, the Court found that the ground advanced on behalf of the petitioners to seek adjournment on 24-2-2004 could not be considered after the power of attorney had been filed by another learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners.
5. The present application for restoration has been filed only on the ground of negligence of petitioners' counsel. This does not absolve the petitioners of their duty to pursue their case. The petitioners have also previously appeared in person. There is no explanation for their absence except that the learned counsel did not inform them of the case. Neglect of the counsel has been well-settled to be not an adequate ground for the restoration of the cases. Even otherwise, it is a blank, general and vague assertion on which no weight can be placed. The order-sheet is a full story of petitioners' neglect and non-pursuit of the case.
6. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present application which is accordingly dismissed.