' This is a Second Appeal. Rent Case No, 219/1977 filed by the respondent/landlord was allowed and the ejectment of the appellant/tenant was ordered by the learned Rent Controller vide his order, dated 24th July 1977. The appellant filed First Rent Appeal No, 219/1977 which was admitted to regular hearing, on 27th August, 1977. However, by the order, dated 21st March, 1979 the appeal was dismissed in default. An application under Order XLI, rule 19, C.P.C. Was filed on behalf of the appellant on 1st April, 1979 for restoration of the First Rent Appeal. However, on 12th February, 1980 the appellant and his counsel were called absent by the learned First Appellate Authority and the application under Order XLI, rule 19, C. P. C. Was dismissed in default. On 17th February, 1980 an application was filed under section 151, C.P.C. For recalling the order, dated 12th February, 1980 of the learned First Appellate Authority dismissing the appellant's application for restoration of the appeal. This application under section 151, C.P.C. Was dismissed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi, the First Appellate Authority, by his order, dated 18th August, 1980. Hence this Second Rent Appeal. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant. I have heard Mr. Hafiz Abdul Baqi, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The application under section 151, C.P.C. Was supported by the affidavit of Mr. Qamar Hussain, an Advocate practicing with the learned counsel for the appellant. In para. 2 of affidavit, Mr. Qamar Hussain, Advocate states that he appeared in the First Rent Appeal before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi, on 10th January, 1980 when the matter was fixed for hearing of the restoration application, but the case did not proceed and was adjourned and according to his hearing he noted the next date in his diary of professional engagement as 14th February, 1980 and this was also noted on the cover folio of the case file of the Advocate. It is also stated in the affidavit of Mr. Qamar Hussain that on 14th February, 1980 he came to the Court of the learned First Appellate Authority alongwith his senior partner for arguing the restoration application, but they did not find the appeal in the cause list, and on inquiry from the office it was learnt that the case was in fact fixed on 12th February, 1980 and the restoration application was dismissed in default.
3. As observed earlier, the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi by his order, dated 18th August, 1980 dismissed the application under section 151, C.P.C. In his order, dated 18th August, 1980, the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi after giving the necessary facts, observed as follows :- "On careful examination of the record, I find that there is nothing to show as to what efforts were made by the appellant to look after his case deligently. The above resume indicates that after having obtained the interim stay at the time of the admission of the appeal, the appellant continued to get the matter adjourned on one or other pretext. Therefore, I am not at all impressed by the pleas of the so-called wrong noting of the date of hearing in the Advocate's diary, although in support of these pleas even the diary has not been produced by Mr. Qamar Hussain, Advocate."
4. I find that a proper order has been passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi dismissing the application under section 151, C.P.C. Moved on hehalf of the appellant. The two main reasons given for the disposal of the application, are that, the appellant had been getting the matter adjourned from time to time on one pretext or the A other and that the diary in which the wrong date had been noted, had not been produced before the First Appellate Authority. In my view. Good reasons have been given by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi in dismissing the application. I find no merit in this appeal. Second Appeal No, 353/1980 is dismissed with costs.. The appellant is, however, granted time till 31st July, 1983, to vacate the premises.
' It may be observed here that while I was hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Wasi, Advocate appeared and stated that he was holding brief for Mr. Malik M.
Saeed, learned counsel for the appellant, and an adjournment was sought on the ground that Mr. Malik M. Saeed had gone to Sukkur and he could not come back to Karachi in time. I told the learned counsel that, if such a request was to be made, the same should have been made before arguments started and not at a later stage when arguments were more or less concluded. I told the learned counsel that if he wanted he could address arguments on behalf of the appellant, as he was holding brief for Mr. Malik Muhammad Saeed, but he stated that the was holding brief only for the purpose of making a request for adjournment and for no other purposes. After this, when I declined to adjourn this appeal, the learned counsel left the Court.