' M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, C.J.--This is an application, filed by the petitioner for seeking re-admission of his letters patent appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26-5-1981.
2. The restoration has been sought on the ground that the petitioner had engaged Mr. Hussain Muhammad Naqvi, Advocate who did not appear on the date of hearing, while Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate who was engaged by the petitioner for filing of a miscellaneous application put in appearance and stated that he had no instructions in the matter with the result that the appeal was dismissed.
3. The petitioner claims that he had no intimation that the case was fixed on 26-5-1981, for hearing, and that he received intimation sent by Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate on a much subsequent date. It is claimed that the name of Mr. Hussain Muhammad Naqvi, Advocate did not appear in the original cause list and the case was listed in the supplementary list, which did not reach him and it was for this reason that he failed to appear in this case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was sufficient ground for re-admitting the appeal.
5. A perusal of the record shows that in addition to Mr. Hussain Muhammad Naqvi, Advocate who had originally filed the appeal, the petitioner had also engaged Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate who had been entering appearance on different dates of hearing, When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 19-5-1981, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. It was found that name of the learned counsel for the appellant had not been shown in the cause list and the case was accordingly adjourned with a direction that the name of Mr. Hussain Muhammad Naqvi, Advocate shall be duly published in the cause list. On 26-5-1981 Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant. He however, stated that he had been engaged on behalf of the appellant to file a miscellaneous application and despite his having sent letter to the petitioner for pursuing the matter and giving him instructions none of the appellants have got in touch with him and he had, therefore, no instructions. From this statement of the learned counsel it is quite evident that the petitioner, had remained negligent in not imparting any instructions to the learned counsel. In the Power of Attorney filed by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, there is no such restriction that he has been engaged only for the purpose of filing of a miscellaneous application.
As is evident from the Power of Attorney Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate had been engaged as a counsel in the appeal itself.
6. Be that as it may, it is evident from the order dated 26-5-1981 that the name of Mr. Hussain Muhammad Naqvi, Advocate, who had originally filed the appeal was duly shown in the cause list, but he did not enter appearance. There is nothing on record to support the assertion of the petitioner that the cause list had not reached Mr. Hussain Muhammad Naqvi, Advocate. There is hardly any justification for re-admitting the appeal.
7. We find no merit in this application which is dismissed.