C.M. Nos, 4031 and 4664 of 2011.
C.M. 4031 is an application for restoration of the main writ petition which was dismissed on 18.12.2009, whereas C.M. No, 4664/2011 is for interim stay of execution proceedings.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear before this Court due to his illness, therefore, main writ petition may be restored.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No, 2 has vehemently opposed the applications moved for restoration of the main writ petition and stay of execution proceedings on the grounds that this writ petition has earlier been dismissed on four different dates of hearing, that the petitioner has deliberately been lingering on this case in order to avoid the decree for recovery of dowry artifice which was passed in favour of the Respondent No, 2 on 25.01.2009, therefore, this petition may be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. It is evident from the perusal of order of this Court that the main writ petition first time was dismissed due to non-prosecution on 18.12.2009 and later on it was restored on 18.01.2010. The main writ petition was again dismissed due to non-prosecution on 01.03.2010 but it was again restored vide order dated 04.10.2010. Later on this petition was dismissed due to non-prosecution for the third time on 9.05.2010 and it was restored on 16.06.2011. This writ petition was dismissed due to non-prosecution on fourth time on 09.05.2011 and now the petitioner has again moved the instant applications for restoration of the main writ petition. If the learned counsel for the petitioner was indisposed then it was duty of the petitioner to appeal in person before this Court. He did not bother to appear in this Court, on any of the above mentioned dates of hearing. The petitioner has already been provided sufficient opportunities to pursue the case but he has miserably failed to avail the said opportunities. There is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident that the petitioner has been deliberately lingering on the case in order to avoid the decree for recovery of dowry articles which was passed in favour of Mst. Fakhra Beg-um, Respondent No, 2.
6. In view of the above, there is no force in these applications, which are, hereby, dismissed.