1. ' This revision application has been filed challenging the orders passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central) on 23-12-1991 in Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1988 whereby the application of the present applicant moved under section 151, C.P.C. was rejected.
2. ' Briefly the facts relevant for the purposes of this revision application are that a suit was filed by the present respondent against the present applicant being Suit No. 2376 of 1978 for declaration and injunction which suit was decreed by Vth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi (Central) on 4- 5-1988. Being aggrieved, the present applicant had preferred Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1988 which came up before IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central) and was ultimately dismissed in default on 22-2-1991. An application under section 151, C.P.C. was moved on 27th July, 1991 i.e. five months after the order of dismissal. This application was also rejected by the impugned order. The present applicant, has, therefore, preferred this revision application.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqi, the learned counsel for the applicant. He has submitted that the Advocate for the applicant (Mr. Kassam Ali) who had been assigned with the case had fallen ill since July, 1990 and was on leave since 18-7-1990 and, therefore, he could not attend the Court on medical grounds. He has further submitted that this is a case in which the Court should have resorted the indulgence under section 151, C.P.C. The learned counsel has today placed a copy of the case diary from the Appellate Court. This case diary shows that on 13-10-1990 a Clerk of K.DA. had appeared on behalf of the present applicant before the Lower Appellate Court and moved an application for adjournment. Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqi, Advocate has submitted that this was not an application for adjournment but was a mere intimation to Court to the effect that the learned counsel had fallen ill. Record and proceedings of the Lower Courts was called for. The application on record is in the following terms:--- "In the Court of Bird Additional/District Judge (Central), Karachi. Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1988 ' Riaz....Appellant v. K.DA. and others Respondents.
4. APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 17, RULE 1. C.P.C.
5. ' It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjourn the above-noted case as the counsel for respondent (KDA) Mr. Muhammad Qasim Ali) is hospitalised in National Institute of Cardiovascular at Karachi due to heart attack heneeapplication for adjournment.
6. (Sd.)
7. COURT CLERK FOR RESPONDENT (KDA)
8. KARACHI, Dated: 13-10-1990"
9. ' The contents of application show that this is an application for adjournment for all purposes and cannot simply be treated as an intimation from someone in the Court. Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqi, Advocate has further submitted that this Clerk, who has given this adjournment application was not authorized or directed by the K.DA./applicant to move such application. The application shows that it is signed by a Court Clerk of the K.DA. Be that as it may, even if the contention of Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqi, Advocate is accepted then it would be a case of no intimation, whereas law requires that not only Advocate but even the party who has once been served with a notice and has come to know that some litigation has been started against him is required to keep himself abreast of various stages in the proceedings. In these circumstances, if the learned counsel for the applicant was ill and on leave since 18-7-1990, it was the duty of the present applicants to have looked after this case since that date but the case diary of the Lower Appellate Court shows that except for this application on 13-10-1990 none has appeared on behalf of the applicant on nine (9) subsequent hearings. This amounts to a clear negligence on the part of the applicant. Moreso, as submitted by Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqi, Advocate Mr. Qasim Ali, A.L.O. was an employee of K.DA. and not a private practitioner and was on leave on 18-7-1990. Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqi, Advocate further submits that section 151, C.P.C. can be invoked in such cases of hardship. He has placed reliance on the case of M/s. United Bank Ltd v. Mahmood Shah 1988 CLC 1357. In this case a learned Single Judge of this Court had observed that in case the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 17, C.P.C. could not be attracted the remedy was given under section 151, C.P.C. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the case of Inamur Rehman Gillani v. Jalal Din and Ahmad Saood 1992 SCM R 1895. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under; "Normally, Courts should try to adjudicate the matter 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 the rule. Unfortunately, the learned Judge appears to consider othewise, an impression which is clearly erroneous."
10. ' It may be observed that in the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that normally the Court should adjudicate the matter on merits except in the cases where it is found that the proceess of Court in being abused. In the present case, the facts as discussed above show that a Clerk of the applicant appears in Court seeks an adjournment and thereafter the applicants simply forget about the case for nine (9) hearings and then suddenly an application under section 151, C.P.C. is moved. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this Revision Application, which is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.