ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- This application seeks the restoration of the appeal dismissed for non prosecution on 20-1-2011.
2. The background of this application is that the main appeal in the first instance was pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court in the absence of the Tribunal and on the re- establishment of the Tribunal it was transferred to this court and was listed for hearing on 23-11- 2009.
' The appeal continued to be pending. However none appeared on behalf of the appellant/applicant on 20-1-2011 and the court was obliged to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution. The appellant/applicant went into deep slumber and filed an application for restoration of the appeal on 23-1-2012 almost after a year which was strongly opposed by the respondents on the ground that there is no justification to condone such a huge and colossal delay. It was added that in this case the power of attorney has been filed by the three learned Advocates but none appeared on the date fixed by the Tribunal. Subsequently Mirza Amir Baig also joined the array of Advocates but none appeared on the given date.
4. Mr. Bilal Munir, Advocate appearing for counsel for the. Appellant/applicant has submitted that the learned advocate who was the incharge of the case prior to the entrustment of the appeal to Mirza Amir Baig did not properly pursue the matter and also did not inform about the dismissal of the appeal for non prosecution in time. As such the delay was not intentional or deliberate and may be condoned.
5.Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6.In this case the record shows that the copy of the order dated 20-1-2011 was applied for on the same date as such it can safely be presumed that the copy was provided to the applicant/appellant within a few days after the order of non-prosecution. This huge delay of one year has not at all been explained properly. The law requires each day's delay is to be explained but there is no cogent or confidence inspiring explanation for the huge delay of one year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as 2006 SCM R 783 (Almas Ahmad Fiaz v. Secretary Government of the Punjab Housing and Physical Planning Development, Lahore and another) observed as under:--- "It is a settled principal of law that the question of limitation under section 46 of the I.R.O. Has to be rigidly construed on the well-known maxim that no party is allowed to circumvent the provisions of the statute of limitation. It is yet another principle of law that the party approaching Court of competent jurisdiction for redress of grievance beyond specified period of limitation is bound to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of respective forum because a valuable right accrues to the other side."
Even otherwise, in this case it was the requirement of law that if the counsel lately engaged in this case was not present the counsel engaged earlier should have taken charge of the case and should have appeared.
Even otherwise if the learned counsel for the appellant could not appear on the given date before the Court, the duty was cast upon the appellant department to appear in the absence of their counsel and as such they were not absolved from appearance in the court. It has been ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 2008 SC 130 read with Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din and another 1974 SCM R
162. In an identical situation their Lordships repelled the assertion of the petitioners and ruled:--- "4. In this case, irrespective of Mr. Gohar Iqbal Advocate, Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate was also engaged for appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the learned High Court. On the said date of hearing neither Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate nor Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate, or Syed Junaid Akhtar, attorney of the petitioner appeared before the learned High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the affidavit of Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate, that since he had to appear in the instant case, as such, Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate or attorney was not supposed to appear. We are not agreed with the above contention. Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate being counsel of the petitioner was equally responsible to explain his absence and file affidavit to explain his absence and support the ground of Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate. Even otherwise, the attorney of the petitioner was also equally responsible to pursue his case. This Court in the case of Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din and another (1974 SCM R 162) held that mere engagement of a counsel will not absolve the litigating party to pursue its case diligently and in case the appealis dismissed for non- prosecution, not only absence of the counsel is to be explained to the satisfaction of the Court, but also the absence of the appellant who is equally responsible for pursuing the case should be explained."
The applicant/appellant has failed to show any reasonable, cogent or plausible explanation for the absence of his counsel or for himself even. The applicant has to explain satisfactorily each day's delay to the court of competent jurisdiction.
7. In this view of the matter I am left with no other option but to dismiss the application for restoration of the appeal. The parties are left to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.