' SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.---The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default on 19-7- 2004. Through this petition filed on 17-5-2005 the petitioner seeks restoration of the writ petition and has also filed an application for condonation of the delay.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mr. Wajahat Hussain Langah Advocate, the counsel for the present petitioner had filed this writ petition on 2-8-1997. Subsequently Mr. Wajahat Hussain, the learned counsel was appointed as Additional District Judge on March, 2002 and the case was fixed for 19-7-2004 but Mr. Wajahat Hussain Langah did not appear, which resulted in the dismissal of the writ petition. Further submits that Mr. Wajahat Hussain Langah learned counsel did not inform the petitioner to engage another counsel, nor the dismissal of the writ petition came into his knowledge. Further submits that one day before the application (Cr1. Misc. No.1071 of 2005) was filed, the petitioner inquired from the office about the date of the case and it was only then that it came into his knowledge that the writ petition had been dismissed on 19-7-2004. It is further submitted that as no limitation has been prescribed under the Limitation Act for the restoration of writ petition, therefore, the petition shall be governed by residuary provision under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes limitation of three years. Relinace is placed upon Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Munir Ahmad PLD 2000 Supreme Court 820. Further submits that he has filed an application for condonation of delay bearing C.M. No.1072 of 2005.
3. Arguments heard.
4. The petition was dismissed on 19-7-2004 while the petition for the restoration has been filed on 17-5-2005. In support of his application for condonation of delay, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies heavily on Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Munir Ahmad (supra), however, this judgment does not help the petitioner as the subject-matter in this case was revision petition and not writ petition. The petition is admittedly hopelessly barred by time and the petitioner has to explain the delay of each and every day. Haider Shah v. Zar Badhshah and others 2003 YLR 295; Ijaz Baig v. Irshad Baig 2003 CLC 1805, Province of Punjab through its Ministry of Communication and Works v. Regd Firm Nisarul Haq Associates 1998 M LD 589 are referred. In the instant case, there is no such explanation. No cogent reason has been given for the delay in filing the restoration application. The reason so mentioned is very vague and is not supported by any evidence.
Consequently, no ground has been made out for the condonation of the delay.
5. Even on merits, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case. The writ petition was filed by Mr. Wajahat Hussain Langah, learned counsel who was practising lawyer at Multan.
Subsequently he is stated to have been appointed as Additional District Judge in March, 2002.
However, the case was fixed on 19-7-2004 when the petition was dismissed in default. The period between the appointment of Mr. Wajahat Hussain Langah, Advocate, as Additional District Judge and the date of dismissal of writ petition is about 2 years and five months. The petitioner had appeared in person on 18-4-2001 when the case was partly heard and was adjourned to 25-4- 2001.
6. However, from 18-4-2001 till 19-7-2004, the petitioner did not take any interest in the matter and did not attend the office of his counsel to ascertain about the status of his writ petition. Just by engaging a counsel, the parties are not absolved of the responsibility to check the progress of his case. In the case in hand, the petitioner has not acted vigilantly over the matter and did not pursue the petition and was even not aware regarding the appointment of his counsel as Additional District Judge. According to the petitioner, it was only on 16-5-2005 when he came to the office to ascertain about his case. It only reflects that the petitioner's lack of interest in his case. It is further observed that since the learned counsel was practicing at Multan therefore, no notice was required to be sent to the petitioner. It was duty of the petitioner to have kept himself abreast regarding the fixation of his writ petition.
7. In the light of what has been stated above, no, ground for restoration of this writ petition has been made out, which is hereby dismissed in limine. Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.1071 and 1072 of 2005 are hereby dismissed.
' Petition and .