1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This is a tenant's petition for leave to appeal. He has been ordered to be evicted .Under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (No, XVII) 1979, on grounds of default and personal requirement of the respondent-landlord. He also failed in appeal in the High Court but only on question of default in payment of rent.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent; but, his Advocate-on Record is present.
3. ' The petitioner had also filed an application for interim relief. For that reason as also for the reason that from the very beginning of this Session, learned Advocates-on-Record were told that such like petitions would be fixed for hearing, if possible, on the next day of filing and in any case within a few days after the institution. Mr. M.I. Memon, is a senior A.O.R. Of this Court and he was aware of these directions. He is also aware of the practice of this Court as also directions in similar cases during this Session by this Bench that if the counsel is not present the A.O.R. Might the called upon to argue such like petitions. Not only this, in a similar case and probably in similar circumstances when his learned counsel was absent, he had not only prepared the case well but argued it competently. It goes to his credit that he is one of those senior Advocates-on-Record at Karachi who perform their duties very diligently.
4. 'Notwithstanding all that has been stated above in this case he, it appears, under some amount of compulsion declined to argue the petition when we noticed that his learned counsel is absent on account of the stated reason that there has been curfew in Hyderabad and for that obstacle he did not come to Karachi. Mt. Memon did not say that he has not prepared the case because according to the practice an A.O.R. Is required to be prepared with the case in presence as well as in absence of his counsel. What he, however, stated was that he has been told by the counsel in this case not to argue the petition. The compulsion of this so-called direction was such that he for understandable reasons could not even obey the direction by the Court that he should argue the case. We, while execusing him, in this behalf, on account of his peculiar predicament did not insist any more nor compelled him to argue the petition because if he would have disobeyed such order, he might have suffered due to no fault of his. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed for non- prosecution.
5. 'Before closing this order, it is necessary to make two observations: one, that the institution of Advocates-on-Record in this Court should not be treated as a ceremonial appendage. It serves a very useful purpose and there are quite a number of competent Advocates-on-Record in Pakistan who undoubtedly are even superior in their performance as "Advocates" than some of their colleagues who are registered as Advocates of the Supreme Court. It might also not he out of place to mention here that at the time of induction as Advocate or Advocateon-Record of the Supreme Court latter stands, experience-wise, at a higher footing. Therefore, while meaning no disrespect to Hon'blc members of the bar who arc enroled as Advocates of the Supreme Court, they also for obvious reasons should not treat the Advocates-on-Record as a class inferior or subordinate to them. Secondly, we are at the same time conscious that on account of aforenoted attitude of the learned counsel in this case in giving some peculiar directions to Mr. Memon on account of which he felt compelled not to argue the petition despite our request to him in this behalf, an innocent party, namely, the petitioner might unnecessarily suffer injurious consequences for which he is not directly responsible. And as in case Mr. Mcmon would have argued the case there might have been a possibility of grant of leave to appeal, therefore, if the petitioner still feels that he has a good case to argue and the matter is still alive he will be at liberty to seek revival of the petition. In the meanwhile, in order to enable him to file an application, of course, within reasonable time, he shall not be physically evicted from the premises in dispute in pursuance of the orders passed against him in this matter, till 15th February, 1990. While counting this period, he shall not be entitled to the days for obtaining certified copy. For that purpose his A.O.R. Can inspect the file and might apply without certified copy.
6. ' With the foregoing observations this petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner. His learned Advocate-on-Record is not at fault.