' On 30-5-1997 this Court dismissed this petition which was filed on 20-9-1994. Since three years this petition was pending at the stage of Katcha Peshi. While dismissing this petition the following order was passed: "This case is being adjourned repeatedly on account of the learned counsel for the petitioners. A similar prayer as in this petition was made in C.Ps. Nos.S-11 and S-12 of 1996 which was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 9-4-1997. Perhaps for these reasons, it appears that the petitioners have lost interest. However, I cannot dispose of this matter on merits of the case in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 1975 SC 678.
' Mr. Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmed, learned counsel has not attended the Court since morning.
However, Chaudhry Latif Saghir, learned Advocate was present and informed he is busy before another Bench.
' He was repeatedly told since morning (as this matter was fixed for Katcha Peshi) that Mr. Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmed, learned Advocate should attend the Court. He has not attended the Court up to now i,e, 11-30 a.m. Consequently, there is no other alternative but to dismiss this petition for want of prosecution. Orders accordingly."
' C.M.A. No,484 of 1997 has been filed for restoration of the case to its original position and recalling the order dated 30-5-1997. Counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavit of Mr. Muhammad Latif Saghar learned Advocate, who was present in the Court on the last date of hearing i,e, 30-5-1997.
He had stated that his senior Mr. Chaudhry Abdul Rasheed was busy before Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, he was not able to appear when the matter was called. Cause list of that date has been annexed. According to this cause list counsel for the petitioner was busy before Honourable Division Bench, which is apparent on the basis of cause list so filed. I find from the record both these matters in Division Bench were filed in 1996 and 1997. Repeatedly on that date i,e, 30-5-1997 Mr. Chaudhry Muhammad Latif Saghar, learned counsel told that this is an old matter, please either argue the matter or go and call Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, Advocate to argue the case and indeed that position has not been denied in the affidavit filed in support of this application. Since this matter was pending since three years which has been specifically mentioned in the order itself that was the reason repeatedly messages were sent to the counsel for the petitioner and he had not denied the fact that the messages were being sent to him, on that date this matter was dismissed for want of prosecution as this was the only matter left with the Bench. In spite of repeated messages sent to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is pertaining to the year 1994 there was no justification to restore this application, for the following reasons.
1. In the ordinary course I would have granted adjournment on 30-5-1997. But I found from the record that this matter was being adjourned at the request of learned counsel time and again. I am bound to pay my due respects to the Division Bench of this Court before whom learned counsel was busy in deference to the principle of comity which was necessary to be observed by the members of superior judiciary and respects had to be shown towards a request for adjournment on the ground of counsel being before the superior Courts at the same time and it was only where such request lacks bona fides or was made to obstruct the course of justice, such as whether counsel or party had already availed of numerous adjournments or the case was an older one and its disposal should not further be delayed or some similar proper ground was found to exist, then such a request could be refused, is the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inamur Rahman Gilani v. Jalaluddin 1992 SCM R 1895. In the order dated 30-5-1997 such fact indeed was recorded that the matter was old one. I could not have decided this petition on merits in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner as I am forbidden to do so by another judgment of honourable Supreme Court which is quoted in the order dated 30-5-1997.
2. Unfortunately, delay in disposal of cases is attributed to the Courts by the public at large. General public has no occasion to see and observe as to why cases are being delayed when several counsel are engaged by a party, a counsel so named in Vakalatnama prefers not to argue the case and wants the Court to wait for another counsel to argue the case is one such reason which hampers the efforts of the Courts to dispose of cases earlier. Such tendency, in my view, is unhealthy and should not be encouraged by the Courts who are charged to dispense justice evenhandedly.
' Mr. Chaudhry Muhammad Latif Saghir, who was present all along in the Court did not argue the case and wanted the Court to wait for Mr. Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmed, Advocate. In spite of repeated messages which were sent to Mr. Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmed, he did not come to argue this case.
3. In the given set of circumstances, I had two choices. Firstly, to impose heavy costs on the petitioners and restore the matter and secondly, to dismiss this application for restoration filed for setting aside an order dated 30-5-1997. I would not resort to the first choice of imposing costs as respondents are workers' union and were waiting for the disposal of the case since three years. I am dismissing this restoration application, firstly, that the matter was pending for Katcha Peshi since nearly three years, secondly, the messages were repeatedly sent to the learned counsel to come and argue this matter which is old matter and thirdly, there was no justification for the Court to adjourn the case again on the grounds of the engagement of Mr. Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmed as the name of Mr. Chaudhry Muhammad Latif Saghir, who was present and wag sitting in the Court and did not proceed with the case on 30-5-1997.