Revision Petition No. 2742-D of 1989 instituted by Saee etc., petitioners herein, was dismissed for non-prosecution on 3-4-1991. On that day the respondents, however, were present in Court through their counsel. On 4-7-1991 the petitioners moved an application (C.M. No.2884-C of 1991) for the restoration of the said revision petition. The said application was resisted by the respondents.
2. 1 have heard the parties' learned counsel and have gone through the material available or, record.
3. The only reason for the absence of the petitioners or their counsel is given in paragraph No.3 of the application which is as follows:--- "That due to oversight, the clerk of the counsel for the petitioner could not notice the case from the cause list, and therefore, his counsel as well as the petitioner remained ignorant about the fixation of the case on 3-4-1991."
4. As regards delay in moving the application for the restoration of the revision petition it was stated in para. No.5 of the application: 'That on 3-7-1991 the petitioners heard from the opposite-party that the revision petition pending in the High Court has been decided in their favour and that they have filed execution application to obtain possession on the same day. The petitioners made enquiry from their ,counsel and were informed that the revision petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution."
5The application is supported by an affidavit of Sher Muhammad petitioner No.2(b).
6. In reply it has been submitted that the application for restoration did not disclose any sufficient or good cause and thus deserves outright dismissal. It is maintained that the case was duly printed in the regular cause list of which the parties' learned counsel had due notice. The reply is supported by an affidavit of ZuIfiqar Ali respondent No.l. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Mst.
Begum and others v. Mst. Begum Kaniz Fatima Hayat and others 1989 SCM R 883 and Mst. Fatima and another v. Mst. Rehmat Mai 1989 SCM R 1202 and submitted that since he had no notice of the fixation of the revision petition, therefore, his absence was unintentional. He further submitted that as his absence was unintentional the revision petition should be ordered to be restored. I am afraid the dictum laid down in the aforesaid authorities is not applicable in the present case. In this case the only contention of the petitioners' is that clerk of their counsel could not notice the case from the cause' list. There is no assertion whatsoever that the learned counsel for the petitioners had ever tried to peruse the cause list and had missed the case in question. The primary duty to note a case is that of the Advocate and not his clerk. By employing a clerk to assist him in' routine matters does not absolve the Advocate of his said primary duty. Therefore, the cause shown in the application for the absence of the learned counsel is neither sufficient nor good. Further, even the case set up in the application for restoration is not supported by any affidavit of either the learned counsel for the petitioner or his clerk. In these circumstances I am of the view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for the restoration of the revision petition which had been dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently the application for the restoration of the revision petition is dismissed.
M.BA./S-80/L