1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 15-12-1991 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to restore the revision petition filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by him for non-prosecution.
2. ' The relevant facts are that a civil revision (bearing No,122 of 1983) filed by the petitioner before the Lahore High Court was fixed for hearing at Lahore on 10-11-1991. The petitioner's counsel, it appears, had to appear before the Supreme Court at Rawalpindi on the same date. Accordingly, when the civil revision in question came up for hearing on 10-11-1991 the petitioner appeared himself in the absence of the counsel and submitted to the learned Court a written request of the counsel to adjourn the case, on the ground that he was appearing before the Supreme Court at Rawalpindi.
3. The learned Judge, however, was not pleased to accept this request and while so doing observed that the petition had been presented by the clerk of the learned counsel which was not proper and furthermore that the learned counsel should have made alternative arrangements for his representation before the High Court, if he himself was busy before the Supreme Court on the date of hearing. Accordingly, the civil revision was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 17-11- 1991.
4. ' A petition for restoration of the revision was thereupon moved by the learned counsel before the learned High Court wherein he explained that the request for adjournment was presented not by his clerk but by the petitioner himself and as regards the question of making alternative arrangements for appearing before the High Court at Lahore on 10-11-1991 this was not possible because the case before the Supreme Court was earlier fixed at Karachi and then was suddenly transferred for hearing to Rawalpindi and the information about the hearing of the case by the Supreme Court at Rawalpindi was received only on 7-11-1991. However, these explanations were not considered sufficient to justify the absence of the learned counsel on 10-11-1991 before the High Court and the application for restoration moved by him was again dismissed vide order dated 15- 12-1991. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. ' When this case came up for hearing before this Court on 16-6-1992, a notice was issued to the respondents for today (22-6-1992) as, prima facie, the order of dismissal of the revision petition appeared to be improper in law in the circumstances of the case noted above. However, today (22-6-1992) when the case was taken up for hearing,. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents; hence we have the learned counsel for the petitioner alone.
6. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition was converted into an appeal and, in our opinion, the appeal merits to be accepted.
7. We observe that the learned counsel for the petitioner notified the Court through a written request which was presented to the learned Judge by the petitioner himself that his learned counsel was to appear before the Supreme Court on the same day at Rawalpindi. In deference to the principle of comity, which is necessary to be observed by the members of the Superior Judiciary, respect had to be shown towards a request for adjournment on the ground of the counsel being before a Superior Court at the same time. It is only where such a request lacks in bona fides or is made to obstruct the course of justice, such as where the counsel or party has already availed of numerous adjournments or the case is an old one and its disposal should not further be delayed, or some similar proper ground is found to exist, can such a request be refused. In this case, the petitioner had himself appeared before the Court and if the Court considered that this was not a proper case in which adjournment could be allowed, as the decision of the case was being unnecessarily delayed, the Court could have, after refusing the request of the learned counsel, proceeded to decide the revision petition on merits, rather than dispose of the case on the ground of non- prosecution. This could be done as the petitioner was, before- him. Normally, Courts should try to adjudicate the matters placed before them on merits and deviate from this course only if they find that the process of the Court is being abused. The dismissal of cases for non-prosecution should normally be the exception and not rule. Unfortunately, the learned Judge appears to consider otherwise, an impression which is clearly erroneous.
8. ' The upshot is that this appeal is allowed. The orders of the High Court passed on 17-11-1991 and 15- 12-1991 are set aside. The matter will now be re-heard by the High Court, after due notice to the petitioner and disposed of on merits.
9. ' Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents there shall be no order as to costs.