' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17- 5-2005 vide which a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed (C.M. No,386 of 2005) seeking restoration of Civil Revision (No,1864 of 2001) which stood dismissed for non-prosecution vide the order, dated 25-3-2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly the afore-referred Civil Revision was admitted to regular hearing by a different learned Judge and the said learned Judge was not available during the days when the case fixed and dismissed for non-prosecution; that the petitioners remained under the impression that the said learned Judge is not available and that the civil revision would not be fixed during the non-availability of the said learned Judge; that additionally the petitioners had taken the brief from the counsel who represented them in the civil revision and the said counsel remained under the impression that he was no longer counsel of the petitioners and did not appear on 25-3-2005, in consequence of which the civil revision was dismissed for non-prosecution. The afore-referred narration of facts, learned counsel contended, indicates that the absence of petitioners was not intentional but on account of misconception beyond petitioner's control.
3. We have considered the submissions made.
4. There is nothing in the High Court's rules or in the admitting note of Civil Revision (No,1864 of 2001) that a civil revision shall be fixed before the same taught Judge who has admitted it. That being so, petitioners remained under a misconception not recognized in law. So far as non-appearance of petitioner's counsel on 25-3-2005 under the impression that the brief had been taken away by the petitioners and that the former was under the impression that he was no longer their counsel is concerned, the same again is not a sufficient ground. Firstly because it is not denied that on the afore-referred date as per record the counsel who did not appear still represented the petitioners and his power of attorney had not been withdrawn, secondly the petitioners himself had to be careful and any slackness or indolence has to be visited with a consequence provided in law.
5. In the afore-referred circumstances, the impugned judgment, therefore, is unexceptionable.
There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed and leave refused.