' NASIM HASAN SHAH, C.J.---This is a petition seeking restoration of the Review Petition (C.R.P.
70/L/92) filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 24-10- 1993.
2. In support of the Review Petition it is submitted that Khwaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on- Record for the petitioner in Civil Review Petition No. 71-L of 1992 (Haji Muhammad Saleem etc. v. Mst.
Maryam Bibi etc.) which was fixed alongwith the present Review Petition, for 24-10-1993, applied for adjournment of the case. It is further alleged that the Advocate-on-Record alongwith other Advocate-on-Record gave his consent to the adjournment, on Thursday, 21-10-1993. The next day being Friday the A.O.R. For petitioner enquired from Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad Advocate-on-Record on Saturday (23-10-1993) as to whether the cases had been adjourned or not on his request.
Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad informed the petitioner that according to a message received from Islamabad, the case had been adjourned. Accordingly neither counsel nor the A.O.R. Of the petitioner put up appearance before this Court. In these circumstances it is prayed that Review Petition No. 70-L of 1992 dismissed for non-prosecution on 24-10-1993 may be restored, heard and decided on merits.
3. We do not agree. The ground urged in support of the application for review, in our opinion, cannot be considered as sufficient for ordering restoration of the case. Merely because the counsel for both the parties agree that a case fixed for hearing on a particular date by this Court should be adjourned to some other date does not imply that the case shall be necessarily adjourned, absolving the party from attending the Court on the date fixed., because until and unless orders have been passed by the Court to adjourn the case it cannot be presumed that the case has actually been adjourned. It is a wrong notion to assume that when counsel for both the parties agree to an adjournment, the case stands automatically adjourned. Accordingly until the Court has accepted the request and granted the adjournment prayed for, the parties are bound to appear before the Court on the date fixed. It is only if the request of adjournment has actually been granted that parties are absolved from appearing on the date fixed for the hearing of the matter. In this case the request for adjournment had not so far been granted, when the case came up for hearing on 24-10-1993.
4. As none was present in this case on behalf of the petitioner while counsel of the respondent was present on the said date, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. The reasons given for the absence of the petitioner in this case cannot, as explained above, be considered sufficient to condone the default. Dismissed.