' An appeal under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act was preferred against judgment/order of the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 30-5-2002. The appeal was dismissed vide order, dated 13-10-2003. The appellant moved two applications i.e. C.M. No.68 of 2004 and C.M. No.69 of 2004 for clarification/review of the judgment, dated 13-10-2003. The applications were dismissed on 224-6-2008 for non-prosecution. Instant application has been moved for restoration of the above applications, which were dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant when reached at 10-30 a.m., the Division Bench which started at 9-30 a.m. Was over. Counsel applied for the certified copy on the same day and non-appearance was due to the fact that the applicant mistook the starting time of the Division Bench.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and record perused.
4. Review application came up for hearing before this Court on 30-4-2004 when none appeared on behalf of the applicant. The case was then fixed for 15-4-2004, 21-5-2008 and 24-6-2008 but principal learned counsel for the applicant was not in attendance. The applicant in his application has explained his non-appearance. Even when the counsel is engaged, the party has to explain its own absence. The absence of the party is not explained. It has been held in the case of Saifullah Siddiqui v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited (1997 SCM R 926) that when absence of the party is not explained, dismissal of the matter for non-prosecution cannot be recalled. We are conscious that weight might A be given to the difficulty of the counsel, who has to appear in various Courts in number of cases but when there is a case of negligence, it cannot be condoned.
In this connection, reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Anwar Khan and another v.
Muhammad Hashim and others (1995 SCM R 539). Miscalculation of time has been held in the case of Sundaresam Pillai v. Ramchandra Pillai (AIR 1943 Madras 36) as not to be sufficient cause. The counsel has remained negligent throughout in pursuance of these applications. The cause of nonappearance on the day when the matter- was dismissed for non-prosecution is not sufficient, therefore, this application which has no merit is dismissed.