' Gul Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of Muhammad Bukhsh and six others, the petitioners, filed suit for possession by pre-emption against Haji Rasool Bukhsh respondent in the Court of learned administra tive Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan which was transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Liaqatpur who issued notice for appearance and prosecution to Sh. Qadir Bukhsh, the learned counsel for the plaintiff therein for 3-12-1970. Since no one appeared for the plaintiff therein, therefore, the suit was dismissed in default under Order IX, rule 8, C.P.C. on 3-12-1970. Gul Muhammad then filed application for the restoration of the suit under Order IX, rule 9, C.P.C. on 2-1- 1971. The application was resisted whereon the following issues were framed:-
(1) Is any sufficient ground for the restoration of the suit? If so, on what terms and conditions? O.P.P.
(2) Relief.
2. The parties adduced evidence and appeared as witnesses. The trial Court dismissed the application on 30-5-1975. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan on 2-6-1976 hence this revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence of the predecessor of the petitioners was not intentional and that no notice was issued for the personal appearance of the plaintiff by the transferee Court; therefore, there was no legal -and factual justification for the dismissal of the suit in default. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent supported the orders of the learned Courts below.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the notice issued by the transferee Court for 3-12-1970 was duly served on the learned counsel for the plaintiff and that the learned counsel was legally bound to appear even before the transferee Court. The service of the counsel is service of the client in law. The learned Courts below have applied their conscious mind to the evidence on record and given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them. Further, it is a case of concurrent finding. The judgment of the Courts below do not suffer from any jurisdictional defect.
' For what has been stated above, it is not a fit case for interference with the impugned orders in the exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
Revision declined.