' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---By this application under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C., and section 151, C.P.C., read with sections 20 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, review of order dated 8-11-2004, has been sought by the appellant.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this application are that the present appeal under section 37 of the I.R.O., 1969, was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 22-9-2004. On 23-10-2004, restoration application, seeking recall of the earlier order was moved by the appellant which was supported with the personal affidavit of the counsel Syed Wasi Haider. In this application, no explanation whatsoever was offered about the absence of the appellant on the relevant date of hearing and further the absence of other counsel representing appellant in this case, was also not explained. Resultantly, the said application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 8-11-2004, which reads as under:-- "This is an application for restoration of appeal which was dismissed on 22-9-2004 as case was called twice and none was present, it was dismissed at 1-15 p.m., though the appellant was being represented by three counsel namely Messrs Sultan Tipu, Umar Farooq and S. Wasi Hyder. None was present. In such circumstances, there appears no reasonable ground to restore the appeal.
Consequently, the application is dismissed."
3. On 1.12-2004, listed application, seeking review of the above order, has been moved on behalf of appellant. It has been stated in the application that other counsel Mr. Sultan Tipu and Mr. Umer Farooq Khan, representing appellant in this case, have disassociated from the Firm of Syed Wasi Haider and it was for this reason that they were not present on the relevant date of hearing.
4. We have heard Ms. Fauzia Rasheed, Advocate for the appellant and perused the case record.
She has not disputed the fact that at time when earlier restoration application C.M.A. No,3788 of 2004 was moved on behalf of appellant the fact now stated in the application about disassociation of other counsel from the Firm of Syed Wasi Haider, was not even disclosed by him to justify absence of other counsel. Thus, it is obvious that after dismissal of C.M.A. No,3788 of 2004 this ground, has been urged as an afterthought. Moreover, learned counsel has also not been able to show that any reason whatsoever was disclosed in the earlier application for restoration of appeal, about the absence of the appellant himself, who was not absolved from his personal liability of appearance in Court on the date of hearing, despite engaging counsel, as held in the case of Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din and 7 others 1974 SCM R 162.
5. In our opinion, counsel engaged in the matter by a party, are under legal obligation to represent their client as long as they have not sought discharge of their vakalatnama in accordance with law. Thus, mere assertion on behalf of the appellant that some of the counsel earlier engaged by him, have disassociated from the Firm of Syed Wasi Haider, is of no consequence.
6. Chowdhary Rasheed Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent, has challenged the very maintainability of this review application by placing his reliance on the following cases:-- {{TABLE}}
1. 1974 PLC 225 2. 2002 PLC 238
3. 1987 PLC 636 4. 1999 PLC 320
5. 2005 PTD 1029 6. PLD 1981 SC 94 {{TABLE}}
7. In reply, Ms. Fauzia Rasheed has placed reliance upon section 20 of the General Clauses Act and the judgment in the case of Mansoor and others v. Muhammad Umer 1982 CLC 284.
8. There is no cavil to the proposition of law that generally the authority passing an order, in appropriate cases, will have power to review its earlier order, falling within the well-defined parameters of review. But the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed above, are entirely different, thus, the review application is not maintainable in law both on facts and law.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.