Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
โ€”

Muhammad Irfan vs Mobilink etc

CourtDistrict Consumer Court
Case No.Misc70/DCC-2009.
Date2009-05-28
Judge(s)Muhammad Kaleem Sheikh
ResultN/A

1. Briefly, the petitioner's claim for recovery of an amount of Rs. 20000/- as compensation due to blockade of his Sim No. 0300 6616631 by the Mobilink Telecom, was dismissed on 16.04.2009, due to non-appearance in that claim, hence, the petitioner seeks its restoration for the reason that the petitioner's non appearance on the said date was inadvertent due to misunderstanding in the date of hearing. The respondent has apposed the petition in hand by filing his written reply.

2. Heard the argument. Record perused.

3. The learned petitioner's counsel has contended during his arguments that petitioner and his counsel could not appear in the court on 16.04.2009, as on 03.04.2009, next date of hearing was inadvertently taken down on the envelop of the petitioner's counsel as 17.04.2009, but that when he, alongwith counsel, appeared in the court on 17.04.2009, it was disclosed to him that the claim had been dismissed for default in appear on 16.04.2009.

4. The petition in hand is not sustainable for the following reasons: a. The claim was dismissed due to non prosecution on 16.04.2009, but the petition in hand has been submitted on 27.04.2009, without an explanation as to why the petitioner kept silent during the period of ten days: b. On 03.04.2009, the claimant, Muhammad Irfan was present in person and the next date of hearing was pronounced in open court on that date, therefore, as the petitioner's counsel was not even in attendance on the said date, the plea of wrong entry of the next date of hearing on his envelop seems to be concocted and after thought: c. On 16.04.2009, the respondent's counsel appeared and the case was kept for wait for petitioner and his counsel till the fag end hours of the court showing that he was not interested to pursue the proceedings, hence, the claim was dismissed accordingly: d. As the order dated 16.04.2009, is final in nature therefore, it is appeal able before the Honourable Lahore High Court under section 30 of the PCPA 2005,:

5. The upshot of the whole discussion is that the petition for restoration merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch