1. The petitioner moved the instant petition for restoration of complaint which was dismissed for non prosecution on 21-12-09. In his petition the petitioner stated that on 14-12-09 the case was adjourned for 21-12-09 but due to misunderstanding and inadvertence next date of hearing was recorded as 22-12-09 on the diary by his counsel and when he alongwith his counsel appeared in Court on 22-12-09 they came to know that the petition was dismissed on 21-12-09 and his absence on 21-12-09 was unintentional, therefore, petition may be accepted after setting aside order dated 21-12-09 and his original complaint may be restored.
2. Respondent submitted written reply wherein he stated that previously the complaint was dismissed due to non prosecution which subsequently restored now again petition dismissed on 21-12-09 and on the same day in another case titled Amjad Sohail Vs. Sui Gas was dismissed. Rest of paras were denied and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
4. From the perusal of judicial record it is evident that previously the petition of complainant regarding the restoration of complaint was accepted and original complaint was restored by my learned predecessor. Now again the petitioner moved the petition for restoration of complaint and took the same ground that he could not appear in the Court due to misunderstanding of date but it transpire from the contents of the petition that petitioner was not present on 14-12-09 and facts were stated by his counsel that date was 22-12-09 and in his support he produced a photo copy of extract of the diary of his counsel of 21-12-09 but he did not produce extract of diary of his counsel regarding the previous date 14-12-09 from where it can be safely gathered that on 14-12-09 the date was incorporated 22-12-09 and there is not copy of extract of diary regarding 22-12-09. He also produced a photo copy of the envelope of his counsel regarding the 21-12-09 but it is incomplete. From the perusal of this document it is clear that it is not regular maintained as there was another date in between 02-12-09 & 14-12-09 which is not mentioned in it. So, these documents do not support in any way to the version of petitioner. From the conduct of the petitioner it is crystal clear that he is playing game of hide and seek with Court which is not warranted by the law. The discretion is to be exercised in favour of genuine litigant having reasonable and plausible cause of non appearance in the Court. The Courts can not be placed on the mercy of litigant such like petitioner to play with Courts when ever he wants to do it. The Courts are meant to redress the genuine grievances of genuine litigant and not to come in aid of such type of litigant who is not particular about pursuing his cases, therefore, he is not entitled to get discretion relief to put forward plausible, reasonable and sufficient cause for setting aside the dismissal order.
5. In these circumstance the instant petition is hereby dismissed.