1. ' At the very outset Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal has raised objection that listed application seeking restoration of the appeal which was dismissed on 17-12-2004 is barred by time.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants have conceded that the period of limitation had expired on 17- 1-2005 and the application for restoration was submitted on 18-1-2005. No application for condonation of delay has been submitted and no proper reason has been advanced for non-filing of the restoration application within the period of limitation.
3. ' A perusal of the order sheet shows that the appeal was placed before the Court for the first time on 7-5-2004 when Mr. Adnan Ahmed Shamsi, Proprietor of the Appellant, appeared in person. He was heard and interim relief was also granted. Again on 13-5-2004 Mr. Adnan Ahmed appeared in person and interim order was extended. On 3-6-2004 there was similar situation. Again on 18-8- 2004 Mr. Adnan Ahmed appeared in person and sought time to engage another advocate. Time was allowed as a last chance. Thereafter, the hearing was fixed on 17-12-2004 but no body appeared on behalf of the Appellants. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution. The listed application was submitted on 18-1-2005 through Mr. Atiq-ur-Rehman, Advocate. On 9-2-2005 Mr. Atiq-ur-Rehman stated that he intends to withdraw his Vakalatnama on behalf of Appellants. Learned counsel was directed to make compliance of Rule 50 of Sindh Chief Court Rules. Thereafter, this listed application was filed on 4-3-2005 when Mr. Ahmed Khan Bugti undertook to file his Vakalatnama and requested for adjournment. Since then the matter was adjourned from time to time and on 15-4-2005 again no body appeared with the result that the restoration application was dismissed. Thereafter, an application for restoration of B the restoration application was submitted. The application was allowed on personal ground of Mr. Ahmed Khan Bugti, Advocate.
4. ' The above resume of facts shows that the Appellant has been playing hide and seek with the Court and was never serious to engage an advocate which is evident from the perusal of the order sheet which shows that from 7-5-2004 till the dismissal of appeal on 17-12-2004 the Appellant did not engage any advocate. Mr. Atiq-ur-Rehman, Advocate has stated that the Advocate who was originally engaged by the Appellant namely Mr. Usman Shaikh used to appear in the Court in the morning but at the time of hearing of the case he used to leave the Court. If it is so, then the Appellant should have engaged another counsel immediately which was not done.
5. ' Since the listed application is barred by time and the conduct of the Appellant shows that he has not conducted himself in a fair manner we do not find any reason to show extra indulgence. The application for restoration of appeal is dismissed as barred by time as well as on merits as no proper reasons have been shown for the absence.