' This application has been moved for restoration/re-hearing of the appeal which has been dismissed for non-prosecution on 1-6-1994. The application has been moved on 4-1-1995, more than seven months after the dismissal. The plea taken by the appellant in his affidavit filed in support of this application is that he had taken away the file from his counsel for getting the photo stat copies prepared; and that the file was retained by him during which period the matter came up for hearing in the Court and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on account of his absence and that of his Advocate. Now he has engaged another Advocate and filed this application. The affidavit of the appellant does not show the dates on which he had taken away the file from his previous Advocate nor does it mention the date when he came to learn about the dismissal of the appeal.
The contention of Mr. Dilawar Hussain, learned counsel appearing for appellant is that it was the duty cast upon the Advocate for the appellant to have appeared in the Court on date of hearing even though case file had been taken away by the appellant. No doubt, once an Advocate is engaged and files his Vakalatnama in Court he is under an obligation, rather duty-bound, to appear on behalf of his client in the Court unless his Vakalatnama is withdrawn with permission from the Court. However, it may be observed that at the same time a client is also under an obligation to keep himself abreast of the proceedings in the Court and has to remain in touch with his Advocate. In the present matter, it is a case of sheer negligence on the part of the appellant himself. Admittedly, he had taken away the file from his Advocate whereby the obvious inference that could be drawn by the Advocate is that the party is rescinding the authority given to the Advocate. In these circumstances, the reasons advanced by the appellant cannot be termed to be a sufficient or good cause to condone his absence. However, if the appellant has any grievance against his Advocate, the remedy open would be to sue a counsel for damages, if such circumstances arise. The application is dismissed.
2. Dismissed as infructuous.