' MAZHAR HUSSAIN MINHAS, J.--7 The petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to assail the order, dated 15-4-2006 passed by respondent No,1, whereby his revision petition against the dismissal of his appeal by respondent No,2 vide order, dated 23-7-2005, has been dismissed.
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's counsel Ch. Muhammad Hafeez, Advocate died on 11-2-2006, therefore, he personally appeared before respondent No,1 on the date of hearing i,e, 15-4-2006 and made a request for adjournment to engage his counsel, but his request was not acceded to and the revision was decided without hearing his arguments. According to learned counsel, the petitioner did not engage any other counsel, therefore, attendance of counsel on his behalf has been wrongly shown in the impugned order and that he has been condemned unheard.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition and have contended that the petitioner himself was not in attendance at the time of hearing and some junior Advocate appeared on his behalf and addressed the arguments. The revision petition was decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
4. As regards the above controversy, the petitioner has placed on record copy of death certificate issued by Secretary, Union Council No,14, Multan, perusal of which shows that Ch. Muhammad Hafeez, resident of Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, Multan, died on 11-2-2006 and his death was got entered in the Union Council by his son Muhammad Amjad Hafeez on 14-2-2006. In view of this certificate, the petitioner was certainly not represented by Ch. Muhammad Hafeez, Advocate, who originally filed the revision petition. In the impugned order, attendance of counsel for the petitioner is marked, but neither name of that counsel is mentioned nor his power of attorney is available on the file. In such state of affairs, it cannot be held that the petitioner was duly represented through a counsel before respondent No,1 at the time of hearing of the revision petition. It is indefeasible right of a party that he should be given fair opportunity of hearing which may not be normally possible in the absence of his counsel. Since at the time of hearing of the revision petition, proper legal assistance was not available to him, therefore, the petitioner is deemed to have been condemned unheard. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and revision is remanded back to respondent No,1 for its decision afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Record be sent back forthwith for further proceedings.