1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J. This is a miscellaneous application for Use restoration of CPSLA No.126 of 1974 which was dismissed on the 28 June 1974 for non-prosecution.
2. Restoration of the petition is sought on the groundthat on that datethe A. O. R. And counsel engaged to appear in the case were bona taken However, the application was neither supported by an affidavit nor medicalcertificate. Therefore, on a request bycounsel the consideration of theapplication was adjourned on the 28th .July. 1974 to enable him to file an affidavit or a medical certificate.
3. Learned counsel and A.O.R for the petitioners have both filed affidavits to say that they were suddenly taken ill on 28-6-1974 and 27-6-1974 respectively and therefore could appear. There is no reason to doubt that statement. It however, does not, absolve theAdvocate-on-Record much less the petitioners of their obligation to appear. The Advocate-on-Recordaccording to his affidavit fell ill a day earlier buthe made on arrangement to inform the Court in time. No affidavit is, tiled by petitioner to have briefed A.O. R. Did not absolve them of their obligation to appear andto ensure that their case is properly conducted.
4. Incidentally we also allowed learned counsel to address us on the merits of the case the dispute concerns the divisibility of evacuee house No I-S/3 Block No.15, Sargodhawhich the Settlement Authority ultimately held to be divisible.This was unsuccessfully called in question in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.The law is now well-settled that the divisibility of evacuee housefor the purpose of it transfer under Act 28 of 1958 is not open to questionin the High Court in, fits writ jurisdiction.th However, that may be, the application for restoration is dismissed to failure of the; Advocate-on- Record and the petitioners to appear on 28-6-1974.