1. On the last date of hearing learned counsel, for the petitioner sought time to address this Court justifying the present petition filed by the same parties on the same facts when the earlier petition had been disposed of after calling the comments and moreover this petition does not anywhere indicate that a similar petition on the same facts by one of the petitioners had been filed earlier before this Court. This is an alarming situation which ought to be checked sternly and cannot be allowed to flourish. Learned counsel ought to be careful before filing any petition before this Court and they ought to take instructions properly from their clients. The affidavit of Mst. Shamim Akhtar attached with the present writ petition indicates that she has concealed nothing when the present petition was filed but I am surprised that she alongwith the same petitioner, in capacity of a petitioner, filed Writ Petition No,7047 of 1997 on the same facts on 9-9-1997. The only difference is that in Writ Petition No,7047 of 1997 she was Petitioner No, 1 and in this petition she is Petitioner No,6.
2. 2.However, in both the petitions the comments were called and have been placed on record. It appears that case F.I.R. No,396 of 1997 was registered under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 on 28-8-1997 read with section 380, P.P.C. at Police Station Nooi Shah, District Sahiwal and the same is being investigated in which both the parties have had ample opportunity to produce their evidence in their favour.
3. 3.In spite of notice, learned counsel has not deliberately put in appearance nor the petitioners have come up to pursue this petition today. This conduct is against professional norms and is neither appreciable nor commendable. However, at the moment it would be sufficient to dismiss this petition as being frivolous and without substance and in case these parties repeat this