1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- A notice under rule 2, Order XV of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 was issued to Mr. Muhammad Naazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record informing him that he had failed to deposit the security in the sum of Rs.1,000 despite several letters issued to him by the Registry and he was, therefore, required to appear before the Court on 3rd December, 1984 at 9.00 a.m. And show cause to the Court as to why the appeal cited above may not be dismissed on account of non- prosecution.
2. When the case was taken up for hearing on 3rd December, 1984 no one was present on behalf of the appellant in response to the show-cause notice. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. Mr. Naazar Khan has filed an application under Order XXXIII, rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules (C.M.P.No.16-R/85) for restoration of the appeal. In this application he submits that he left Lahore for Rawalpindi on 3-12-1984 in a Bus of the Flying Coach Service and reached here at about 12 noon, shortly after the case had been taken up and disposed of; that he had requested the official of the Court over the telephone that the case may be taken up last of all when the Court _rises for the day but that his message had not perhaps, been brought to the notice of the Court.
4. These grounds hardly furnish sufficient cause for restoration of the appeal. Once the counsel had been informed that his case was fixed, even if it was for the next day, he should have taken appropriate steps for reaching at 9 a.m., as indicated in the notice. Although he came by a Flying Coach, he submitted that it took him nearly six hours to_ get here. If these were the only grounds for seeking restoration, it may not have been possible to accede to his request.
5. However, before us, the learned counsel urged a more substantial ground in support of his prayer for restoration of the appeal. He pointed out that the appeal in this case was by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and other functionaries of the Settlement Department in their official capacity. No deposit of security is necessary in cases wherein the Government or their functionaries are appellants and file appeals on its behalf. Therefore, the demand for deposit of security was not itself warranted and a fortiori the failure to deposit could not entail the dismissal of the appeal "on account of non---prosecution".
6. There is force in this submission.
7. We would, accordingly, withdraw our order, dated 3-12-1984 dismissing the appeal for non- prosecution and restore it to its original number.
8. The appeal, which is in a settlement matter and was filed in 1977, should be made ready and fixed for hearing as soon as possible without requiring the appellants to deposit the security if it is ready in all respects.
9. The show-cause notice is discharged.