1. ' This leave to appeal petition was filed in June, 1981 without complying with the Rules of this Court regarding filing of the necessary documents for disposal of such like petitions. They were not filed even during the last about eight years. The matter was fixed several times; but was adjourned on petitioners' request for one or the other reason. Notwithstanding these adjournments which were fully availed of, the required documentation was not done. It was not merely a technical default-- when the matter came up for final arguments on 28-2-1989 it could not be heard on account of the absence of the relevant documents for which it appeared that the learned counsel was not at fault. The petitioners had not supplied even by that time all the necessary documents which were needed for hearing and disposal of this petition, neither to him nor to the learned A.O.R. This default having thus created the impediment, notice was issued to the respondent's side. The case was adjourned to a date in office and the petitioners were directed to place on record "all the documents in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules failing which the petition might be dismissed".
2. ' This petition was re-fixed for hearing on 15th March, 1989 i.e, today. The learned A.O.R. For the petitioners presented an application on 8-3-1989 for adjournment of the petition. It reads as follows:- "PETITION for adjournment of case fixed for 15-3-1989. Respectfully sheweth:-
(1) That the above-cited leave petition was taken up for hearing by this Hon'ble Court on 28-2-1989.
(2) That the Hon'ble Court directed the petitioner to place on record necessary documents and the case was adjourned for a date in the office.
(3) That the A.O.R. For the petitioner immediately required the petitioner to supply the requisite certified copies.
(4) That the requisite documents have, so far, not been supplied as yet. It is, therefore, prayed that C.P. No,763 of 1981 may please be ordered to be not fixed on 15-3-1989."
3. ' The office submitted a note in this behalf and sought orders in Chambers on the application of A.O.R.; whereupon the office was directed to submit a comprehensive note for further consideration. The same was submitted yesterday in Chambers whereupon it was ordered to be put up in Court with a direction that the C.A. Would bring it to the notice of the Honourable Judges.
4. The office was directed also to inform the A.O.R. About the note.
5. ' Both, the petition for leave to appeal as fixed earlier and the office note, came up for hearing in presence of the A.O.R. Of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned A.O.R. Of the petitioner submitted that he had performed his duty. The petitioners had not supplied him the required documents earlier. He has, however, now received a bundle of documents for which he would require time to sort them out as to which are to be filed as required by the Rules. In other words he could not be certain as to whether all the required documents are contained in the bulk of documents he has received nor the proper sorting out has taken place. Be that as it may, till now the documents have not been placed on record. The A.O.R. Wanted further time. When questioned about the respondent's position, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the default had undoubtedly been committed and submitted that such serious defaults have in the past resulted in the dismissal of the leave to appeal petitions.
6. ' Office note with regard to the default in question reads as follows: - "This petition was filed by Mr. Hamid Aslam Qureshi, A . O.R. On 28-6-1981, without properly documenting it in violation of the following Supreme Court Rules which read as under:-
(1) Order XII, rule 4.
7. "The petition of appeal shall be accompanied by
(i) certified copies of the judgment and decree or final order appealed against and of Courts below."
(2) Order XIII rule 3.
8. "The petitioner shall lodge at least three copies,,unless required otherwise by the Court of ----
(iii) 'paper books of High Court, if any, and the other record duly attested by the A dvocate-on- Record of the petitioner--------------
2. It is further submitted that in an effort to get dispose of this old petition the office listed it six times as under:-
(i) 17-7-1988.
(ii) 5-11-1988.
(iii) 15-11-1988.
(iv) 30-11-1988. (vi) 28-2-1989.
9. ' Now in obedience to the order of the Court dated 28-2-1989, the notice has been issued to the respondent for 15-3-1989.
(3) From the above facts it may kindly be seen that first of all the AOR /petitioner did not file a proper petition and now he is not interested in its disposal. In the humble opinion of the office 15 days time (28-2-1989 to 15-2-1989) to file the documents which the AOR /petitioner should have filed in 1981 is sufficient. Moreover, it has been held by this Court in Noor Khan v. Member, Board of Revenue and others (1984 SCMR 681) that if a petitioner does not properly document the petition, he disentitles himself to discretionary relief.
10. ' Submitted for orders please. Umar Din 14-3-1989."
11. ' After the A.O.R. Had argued the matter trying to show that he was not at fault and that it was .a fit case for grant of further time and condonation of the previous default, learned counsel for the petitioners also appeared. It seemed that he was not fully conversant with the default, its true nature and the result thereof if not condoned. He tried to assert that notwithstanding any such default, the petitioners should be afforded full hearing on merits because the question raised in the petition is such that it required an authoritative pronouncement by this Court. The learned A.O.R.
12. Remained present. We are not certain whether the A.O.R. Had informed the learned counsel about the full implication of the default, which had been pointed out to him, (A .0.R.) by the office and for which the A .0.R . Had prepared himself submitting reply/explanation.
13. We, after hearing the learned counsel from both sides and after examining the question of default, at length, are of the view that it is not condonable now. Nearly eight years have passed after the filing of the petition. The petitioners for the first time supplied the documents (if they are complete) to their A.O.R. Now. It is not a case that the documents were not necessary. Not only the Rules required them but also the default and difficulty was demonstrated on the last occasion when the case was taken up for hearing. It could not proceed on account of the default and it was ordered that the documents should be placed on record otherwise "the petition might be dismissed". The learned A.O.R. And the learned counsel of the petitioners are very experienced. It cannot be said that they are committing this serious repeated default. It is also not possible to hold them responsible for the default. The petitioners themselves are guilty of this very serious default obviously; because, the Lawyers could not have placed on record the necessary documents unless the same would have been supplied by the petitioners to them. Admittedly the documents if at all they are now complete, have been supplied to the A.O.R. At this late stage. Admittedly they were not placed on A the record and paper books of these petitions for the examination of the members of the Bench nor are they part of the paper book for the use of the counsel for today's hearing. That is why the learned A.O.R. Tried to seek more time; while earlier, he had sought postponement of today's hearing on account of his client's failure to respond to his request for supply of papers to him.
14. ' The default on the part of the petitioners themselves (and not on the part of the learned A.O.R. Or their counsel) is contumacious. A possibility of motives of intentional delay for reasons best known to them also cannot be excluded. Their conduct does not deserve any further leniency. Accordingly request made on their behalf by their A.O.R. For adjournment and condonation is refused. The apprehension expressed by their learned counsel that if the questions raised in this petition are not disposed of in this very case, the impugned judgment of the High Court would influence a large number of similar cases, is not such as to impel this Court to ignore what is stated above, particularly the contumacious conduct of the petitioners which as already observed might have been motivated. The apprehension by itself, it might be clarified, is also not well-founded; because if there are many cases, the decisions in which would be influenced by the judgment of the High Court (which has been impugned in this petition) the questions raised herein might and would then be examined in any one of those cases when they are brought before the Court in proper proceedings.
15. ' In the light of the foregoing discussion and reasons this petition is dismissed for default on the part of the petitioners themselves.