Pakistan Case Law← Search
1993 SCMR 1570

Ch. NASEER AHMAD and 4 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through

Citation1993 SCMR 1570
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 725/L of 1991
Date1993-02-07
Judge(s)Abdul Shakurul Salam, Muhammad Afzal Lone
ResultLeave refused

ORDER

' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.--Petitioners seek leave to appeal against an order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in C.M. No.603 of 1991 in W.P. No. 990 of 1991 dated 9- 7-1991.

1. The facts are that when on 1-74991, the petitioners' writ petition came up before/the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, the following order was passed:-- "There is a letter dated 22-3-1984, available on record written by the Assistant Administrator, Litigation, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Lahore addressed to Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Multan, that the said department does not want to pursue the writ petition. No body has appeared today for the petitioners. Dismissed for non-prosecution."

2. The petitioners filed an application for restoration being C.M. No. 603 of 1991. The learned Judge observed that "there were four counsel for the petitioners and even if one of them was not available there was no explanation why others were not present'. It was also noted that "the writ petition was filed on behalf of the Chairman of Evacuee Property Trust Board whose order was set aside by the Federal Government. In view of these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the prosecution of the case even was bona fide. No ground has been made out for restoration of the writ petition. This petition is dismissed in limine". This is vide order dated 1-7-1991.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the principal counsel was to appear non-appearance of the other counsel was not fatal and the non-appearance of the principal counsel was justifiable.

4. In view of the order of the final authority, the Federal Government, the petitioners have no right.

The petition is without force. It is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search