1. ' SYED MEHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.---The petitioner filed an application under Order IX, rule 9, C.P.C. For restoration of the instant petition which was dismissed on 15-9-2005 for non-prosecution and the learned counsel claimed that he came to know only on 13-12-2005, regarding the above order, hence he filed the instant application on 14-12-2005, and subsequently, after passing of 11 months he has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay, in support of the above application.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that similar type of petitions were pending and on the same ground this petition was also admitted for regular hearing, and this petition was to be fixed and tagged with the above petitions. He further contended that his nonappearance was inadvertent, bona fide and unintentional and as per dictum laid down by the Hon'ble superior Courts the matter may be disposed on merits and not on technicalities. The application for restoration was filed immediately after his coming to know of the dismissal order in non- prosecution. In support of his arguments he relied upon Muhammad Khan v. Shabrati (PLD 1995 Karachi 267), Muhammad Dawood v. The State (1986 SCMR 536), Basham Khan v. Shafi Shah (1983 SCMR 183), Qabal Jan v. Habab Jan (1992 SCMR 935) and Hyderabad Development Authority v.
3. Abdul Majeed (PLD 2002 SC 84).
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of this case carefully.
5. ' Through the instant petition he has challenged the vires of Sindh Finance Act, 1994, and other constitutional petitions are also pending and this petition was also to be fixed with the above constitutional petitions as mentioned in the diary sheet vide order, dated 21-10-2003, i.e. The admission order and the petition was admitted on the ground that since similar petitions touching the vires of professional tax have been admitted by this Court, therefore, this petition too was admitted on the same grounds and was to be fixed after the decision of the appeal preferred by the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application bearing CMA No.990 2005 under section 151, C.P.C., for early hearing and disposal on merits, which was filed on 9-3-2005 and the Court was pleased to issue notice to the other side and fixed the matter to 6-4-2005, on which day none was present for the petitioner's side, and as the cost had also not been paid, the learned Division Bench extended by three days' the time to pay the cost.
6. Thereafter, the case was fixed on 10-5-2005, when the advocate for the petitioner appeared and undertook to pay the cost whereafter, the matter was adjourned. After a long time the matter was fixed on 5-9-2005, and at 1-00 p.m. The petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution along with it's listed applications. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present listed applications, and on 22-12- 2005 all the applications were dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner filed another application for restoration of the petition. Thereafter the matter was fixed on 26-5-2006 and notice was ordered to be sent to the other side and after a long time the petition was fixed on 5-9-2006 for the same purpose, and again it was adjourned to 20-9-2006 for service and on the same date the Court also gave three days' time to the learned counsel for the petitioner to pay cost for the notices as it had not been paid earlier. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for 8-11-2006 when the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Thereafter matter was adjourned and after approximately nine months the case was fixed for the same purpose on 7-9-2007, and again on 5-12-2007, when the counsel was called absent again and, therefore, adjourned again to 4-3-2008, but all the occasions Mr. Farooqui was called absent.
7. It clearly reflects that the counsel Mr. Farooqui never took any interest in this petition and chose to remain away from the Court and even failed to comply with the orders of the Court. It is, crystal clear from the case diaries that the petition was dismissed on 15-9-2005 due to the conduct of the advocate for the petitioner as apparently he had, no interest in the case, and subsequently, his restoration application was once again dismissed on 22-12-2005, and though the application was filed after a delay of 62 days, even then no application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, was filed. However, after passing of a year, Mr. Farooqui filed an application for condonation of delay, but he has failed to satisfy this Court regarding the ignorance on his part to pursue the matter. Mr. Farooqui's contention that similar petitions were already pending and that on the very grounds this petition was admitted for regular hearing and that this petition was to be fixed with the other petitions, is not correct as this petition was fixed on the application for urgent hearing of the petition, but after the dismissal of the petition for non-prosecution, the conduct of Mr. Farooqui is apparent, which shows that he had lost his interest and his continuous absences were not bona fide, but amount to gross negligence on his part, and the Court has rightly dismissed his petition for non-prosecution. Even after filing the application for restoration, he has filed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act after passing of 11 months and has to satisfy the delay in filing the application which is hopelessly time-barred. Hence in the above circumstances, both the applications are hereby dismissed with no orders to costs.