By this order I propose to dispose of the .application for Recalling Order dated 01-06-2016 as well as application, for Condonation of delay filed by the learned counsel for the applicant; praying therein that this Commission may kindly be pleased to recall the Order dated 01-06...2016 and restore the matter to its original stage/position. The application has been supported by Affidavit.
The grounds mentioned M. Affidavit are that on such date of hearing, he was out of station due to some domestic affairs, hence, he could not appear before this Bench of Commission. He further stated that soon after first holy month of Ramadan, he could net make contact with his counsel and he was informed by the staff of this Commission that his case was dismissed in default.
He further stated that his absence and the absence of his counsel was not willful, or deliberate but beyond of their control. My counsel was also busy before the Hon'ble .High Court in several matters.
He stated that he has prima-facie case for recalling of the order and restoration of the case and shall be seriously prejudiced, if the order dated 01-06-2016 is not recalled and the case is not restored and he shall be seriously prejudiced and shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship.
On the other hand, the respondents filed counter affidavit, stating therein that the application for restoration of the case which is time-barred, is liable to be dismissed and the order sought to be recalled was passed on 01-06-2016 whereas the application for recalling was filed on 13-07-2016.
They further stated that Diary Sheet reveals that on number of dates, the applicant was not appearing in the matter, mere engagement of the counsel is not enough. The applicant either was not appearing or he had sought adjournments as on number of dates and the Bench has rightly dismissed the case for non-prosecution. Even otherwise prima facie, the application is liable to be dismissed. The grounds mentioned in the application filed by the applicant are not cogent and law favours the vigilant and not the indolent.
Further stated that balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents and irreparable loss and damage shall be caused if a time-barred application is allowed.
The respondents counsel relies On the authorities given as under:
1. Restoration Application has to be filed within 30 days i. 2002 PLC 158 (Lahore High Court)
Ss. 37(3) & 38(3)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal-Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of -Appellant remained absent and appeal was dismissed by the Appellant Tribunal for nonprosecution--Appellant was so negligent and carefree in his conduct that he moved application for restoration of appeal beyond time which application too was dismissed for non-prosecution-- Another application filed for revival of first application seeking restoration of appeal was, also dismissed for non-prosecution--Appellant, in the light of such conduct was not entitled of any indulgence of High Court in exercise of its equitable and discretionary jurisdiction.
Also relies on: ii. 2003 SCM R 964 iii. 2005 SCM R 119
2. Restoration sought on the ground that Counsel had not informed the client-held no ground: i. PLD 2001 SC 49 at 53 As a party who knocks the door of the Court is expected to be diligent and vigilant to keep a track of the proceedings and not to wait for notice of the Court.
3. Mere engagement of counsel is not enough. Party has to attend and pursue that the case is being diligently handled. i. 1974 SCM R 162 Mere engagement of counsel does not absolve litigant of all his responsibilities--Party as well as counsel both bound to see appeal properly and diligently prosecuted--Counsel engaged, if lacking in his sense of responsibilities to Court, opposite-party cannot be made to suffer on that account.
Also relies on: ii. 1970 SCM R 76, 1993 PLC 864 and 1989 PLC 693.
4. Three adjournments-enough indulgence: i. 1987 SCM R 1887 The petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to lead his evidence found to be without any substance--Proceedings adjourned on three occasions to enable petitioner to produce his evidence but Rent Controller, after being satisfied that petitioner was purposely prolonging the proceedings, closing his evidence--No infirmity could be found in order of Rent Controller in such regard--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
It is admitted position that the application for restoration filed by the applicant is hopelessly time barred to wing the perusal of record and gone through the citations retied upon by respondents, I have come to conclusion that the applicant has failed to make out his case and the grounds mentioned in the application have no force and law favours the vigilant, not the indolent.
For the above-said reasons, the applications for restoration as well as condonation of delay are hereby dismissed. 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.