1. MS. RUKHSANA AHMED, J.---Learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed application being C.M.A.
2. No,3284 of 2010 which is taken up for hearing, in which it has been prayed that the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. Being C.M.A. No, 1956 of 2010 which was dismissed for non- prosecution on 16-3-2010 may be restored. The said application is supported with personal affidavit of Advocate, in which it is stated that initially this court was pleased to grant interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff on 11-11-2009. It is contention of Advocate for the plaintiff that his name was not printed in the computer listed issued by High Court Bar Association therefore, he was remained uninformed about the fixation of the said case on 16-3-2010.
3. ' On the other hand, learned Advocate for defendant through his counter-affidavit to the said application stated that whatever stated by Advocate is incorrect and he further argued that since last three dates the names of the Advocates appearing in the case is printed on the cause list comes in the same bracket and that the name of the counsel of the plaintiff is not independently printed. The cause list as well as the computer list are being distributed by the High Court Bar Association and even otherwise the name is very much apparent in the cause list and can be easily picked by the computer. He further argued that it is not a case that the High Court Bar Association has not provided cause list and computer list. He further argued that the application for restoration was rightly dismissed by the court for non-prosecution. In any event the council should be vigilant about his case while performing professional duties.
4. ' To the said counter-affidavit, affidavit it rejoinder was filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in which he has reaffirmed the contents of his earlier affidavit along with application.
5. ' I have perused the case record as well as gone through the list printed by the High Court Bar Association in the name of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. In the first place, it is observed that the High Court Bar Association distributes personalized list of the cases of each Advocate who is a member of the Association in order to save time and this exercise has been benefited by all the members of the High Court Bar Association since its inception. In present event both the counsels are members of the Association and enjoy this privilege and further it is observed that such facility has only started to save the time of the members of the Bar from checking whole cause list.
6. ' In the present case Roster Branch had printed cause list of the original side of at least last three hearings by showing the names of both the Advocates jointly and within brackets i,e, (M. Shafi Siddiqui, Sultan Ahmed Shaikh). However, this court in order to clarify the position that when the names of both the counsels are appearing in the cause list as issued by the Roster Branch, as to why the computer list of the High Court Bar Association did not print the name of the counsel for the plaintiff against the said case. Mr. Muhammad Yousuf of the High Court Bar Association was called and asked to assist and explain to the court about such technicality and it was informed to the court that as the Roster Branch cause list shows name of both the Advocates within the Brackets 0 therefore in the High Court Bar Association computer cause list issued by the Bar Association the said case was not shown under the cases of Mr. Sultan Ahmed Shaikh Advocate owing to the understanding that both the Advocates were appearing from one side and therefore as the name of Mr. Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui Advocate is appearing before the name of Mr. Sultan Ahmed Shaikh Advocate the computer list only printed this case against the computer list of Mr. Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui ,Advocate. The computer list of High Court Bar Association dated 10-8- 2010 was also shown to the court by Mr. Yousuf wherein the case in hand was again not shown in the list against the plaintiff Advocate whereas on the other hand in the Roster Branch cause list mentioned showing the names of both the Advocates within brackets. Further, it has also been brought to the knowledge of this court that on 9-3-2010 name of Mr. Sultan Ahmed Shaikh Advocate is mentioned in the case diary, but on the said date, the application for urgency was moved by Mr. Muhammad Shall Siddiqui Advocate for defendant being C.M.A. No,2138 of 2010 along with his personal affidavit and Mr. Sultan Ahmed Shaikh Advocate was not present and his name was written by mistake and such fact supports the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that on 9-3-2010 when the court granted urgency and fixed the case on 16-3-2010 he had no' knowledge about such date of hearing. Counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that where a wrong done to a party it could be also be remedied under the inherent jurisdiction of this court. In order to fortify these arguments he placed reliance on the case of PLD 1978 Kar.210, wherein similar injunction application was dismissed in default of appearance of the Advocate for the plaintiff and the same was restored subsequently.
7. The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff appears to be of substance that he had remained unaware about the fixation of the present case in the court on 16-3-2010. In view of the above circumstances leading to the dismissal, by way of indulgence, this court allows C.M.A.
8. No,3284 of 2010 but only subject to deposit of costs of Rs,10,000 in the High Court Employees Benevolent Fund by the learned counsel for the plaintiff within 7 days from today and in consequence thereof, the application being C.M.A. No,1956 of 2010 would be restored to its original position which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16-3-2010 and C.M.A. No,3283 of 2010 filed by the plaintiff would also become infrutuous and would be deemed to be disposed of accordingly. In case of failure on the part of learned counsel for the plaintiff to deposit the costs, his restoration application being C.M.A. No,3284 of 2010 would be deemed to be dismissed.
9. ' However, before parting with this order, the office is directed to make correction in the Roster cause list and to remove brackets and commas and mention the names of the both the counsel separately so that the present case should appear in the computer list of both the Advocates.
10. Office is further directed to be careful while mentioning the name of Advocates in the cause list.