SHAFI-UR-REHMAN,J.-The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 11-11-1980 whereby restoration of a constitutional petition dismissed for default was refused.
2. In the year 1970 the petitioners instituted a constitutional petition challenging certain orders passed by the Settlement (Land) Authorities. The petition carne up for hearing on 15-3-1984 when neither the counsel for the petitioners was present nor the petitioners themselves. The respondents were, on the other hand, represented. The Court recorded the following order "None appeared on behalf of the petitioners even on the last two dates of hearing fixed in this case.
The case has been called. None appears today. Dismissed for non-prosecution."
The petitioners sought restoration on the ground that the name of Mr. Ijaz Anwar, the learned counsel for the petitioners appeared wrongly as Mr. Ijaz Ahmad and as such a mistake on the part of the office in listing occasioned the failure.
3. The learned Judge in the High Court keeping in view all the circum--stances of the case, including the mistake in its listing, found that there was no merit in the petition for restoration and hence dismissed it.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the failure of the petitioners to appear on the date fixed and to ensure representation was fully explained and duly accounted for and provided sufficient justification for restoring the petition.
5. The learned counsel admitted during the course of the hearing that Rana Maqbool Hussain Khan was the first counsel engaged by the petitioners whose power of attorney was placed on the record of the case. Thereafter, another counsel Mr. Ijaz Anwar was engaged and his power of attorney was also placed on record. Finally, Mr. Noor Ilahi, Advocate, of Sahiwal was engaged and his power of attorney was also placed on record. It was in this background that cause list for 15-3- 1980 contained at Serial No. 4 the particulars of the case and mentioned the name of all the three counsel of the petitioners apart from, the names of those representing the respondents. It is true that the name of Mr. Ijaz Anwar appeared as Mr. Ijaz Ahmad. There was no mistake, however, in naming the other two Advocates. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rana Maqboob Hussain Khan had left practice while Mr. Noor Ilahi was an out-station counsel who had received no notice. The learned counsel who could readily attend to the matter had not been properly notified by the list as his name was not correctly listed. The learned Judge in the High Court had pointed mentioned that on earlier dates also there was non-appearance on behalf o the petitioners. In showing an indulgence, in exercising a discretionary power and in affording relief in such matters the Court was well justified to see to the conduct of the petitioners in diligently pursuing the case before the Court. If there was material to establish that the conduct of the petitioners was wanting and deficient the discretion could as well be exercised against them. We find that the learned Judge has attended to all the relevant factors and has chosen not to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners in the matter of restoration. The discretion exercised is not in violation of any principle of law or shown to be unsound in the circumstances of the case. The leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.