1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---When we took up this duly listed appeal for hearing Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the appellants sought adjournment on the ground that Mr. Habib AlWahab Alkhairi, learned counsel "has gone to Lahore is due to return this afternoon" and that he had requested the A.O.R. To seek adjournment. We told the learned counsel that it is an extraordinary request for various reasons from amongst which some are: One, that the Court having made elaborate arrangement for liberal grant of adjournment and adjustment by the office, this facility was not availed of; two, that it is not befitting for an honourable member of the Bar to request for adjournment in Court if the arrangement is made for adjustment of cases and adjournments are availed of by simply sending printed form already prescribed in this behalf to the office--it is only when the office refuses that an occasion might arise for first approach the A senior Member of the Bench in Chamber and if that course is not possible, to make the request as a last resort at the time of hearing; three, the procedure and practice being followed for the last more than a year saves botheration to the honourable Members of the Bar in making appearance in Court and then also making a request which may or may not be allowed; four, this practice in ultimate analysis saves time for hearing of the cases rather to spend it on examining the pros and cons for adjournment of cases; five, the time so saved is being ultilized for disposing of more cases.
2. In reply the learned A.O.R. Again stressed rather begged for adjournment. This, we told the learned counsel, sometimes becomes humiliating for the learned Membe rs of the Bar, therefore, it is more proper that the better and more dignified manner of seeking adjournment and adjustments as being now practised should be B adopted. He insisted whereupon he was told that under the law even if a party and/or the counsel who has to argue the case is absent the A.O.R. Is bound by his duty to assist 'and argue the case. Therefore, we directed him to argue the C case. He said that he has not prepared it whereupon he was told to prepare it to which he answered that he despite being an A.O.R. And having the knowledge of the case, did not have a paper book with him. Though it was not a justifiable explanation, we offered him a paper book from the Court and leaving the matter at that under the hope that Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan will do the needful took up other cases.
3. After considerable time when the case has again been taken up the learned A.O.R. Without any hesitation stated that he will not argue the case. When told that it amounts to non-cooperation, he did not give any satisfactory reply except that during the discussion one of his explanations on a point was' that he is now too old to change his attitude and habit and that it is a lawyer's case.
4. We cannot expect and accept such a response from an A.O.R. Of this Court. Accordingly, there is no alternative except to dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution.
5. There shall be no order as to costs,