' The Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30-1-1994 on which date no one appeared for the petitioners. However, a written request for adjournment had been received from the learned counsel for the petitioners stating therein that he had to go to Faisalabad in connection with some personal urgent work. The application for adjournment having been refused, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. Today, Mr. Jamshed Sadiq Alvi, learned counsel for the petitioners has explained that as one of his relatives had fallen ill on 29-1-1994, he had to take him to Faisalabad and it was for that reason that he could not appear before this Court. These facts were, however, not mentioned in the application A for adjournment in which a bald statement was made by the learned counsel that he had to go to Faisalabad for some personal urgent work which was hardly a ground for adjourning the case.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 has disputed the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was away to Faisalabad on 30-1-1994. A copy of the proceedings in a revision petition titled Ikhlaq v. Rabia pending before the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Lahore has been produced which shows that the counsel for the petitioners in that case, who happended to be Mr. Jamshed Sadiq Alvi, had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner on 30-1-1994. Mr. Alvi has tried to explain that it was after his return from Faisalabad at 11 a.m. That he had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner. Even if that be so, this fact at least shows the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners at Lahore on 30-1-1994. No ground has been made out for the restoration of the Constitutional petition. This C.M. Is dismissed.