ORDER CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present application arises are that the Deputy Collector Customs passed order against the petitioner on 10.3.1993. The petitioner being aggrieved of the aforesaid order filed an application before Deputy Collector for recalling the order dated 10.3.1993. The Deputy Collector did not decide the same and the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 who dismissed the same vide order dated 11.11.1993 and subsequently petitioner filed an appeal! Before respondent No. 1 was also dismissed the same vide order dated 17.5.1994. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Customs Authorities filed the aforesaid writ petition before this' Court on 18.8.1994 through Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate. The petitioner also executed wakalat nama in favour of the aforesaid Advocate i.e. Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate. The writ petition was dismissed on the statement of the learned counsel of the petitioner in the following terms vide order dated 1.7.1998: "Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has no instructions.
The petition is dismissed." The petitioner being aggrieved filed the present application through Dr. Asghar Ahmad Rana, Advocate on the ground that petitioner was present in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the learned counsel Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate had filed the said writ petition but subsequently the petitioner engaged another counsel to pursue his petition who did not appear on the said date due to Chehlum of his father. He further urged that the absence of his counsel is not intentionally and deliberately but was due to the Chehlum of his father. He further urged that in case the writ petition is not restored and decided on merits then the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury.
2. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner.
The following are the admitted facts:
(i) The petitioner executed power-of-attorney in favour of Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate on 18.8.1994.
(ii) Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate filed writ petition on 18.8.1994.
(iii) The attested affidavit of the petitioner also attached with the writ petition.
(iv) Power-of-Attorney in favour of Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate is not cancelled by the petition till date.
(v) This Court has not passed the order for cancellation of ' the power of attorney in favour of Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate.
(vi) Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate has given the statement before the Court on 1.7.1998.
(vii) The writ petition was dismissed on 1.7.1998.
(viii) Therefore, belated application for restoration is filed on 7.10.1998.
3. in case the aforesaid facts are put in juxtaposition then it is crystal clear that till the dismissal of the writ petition Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate was counsel of the petitioner, by virtue of Order 3, Rule 4 of CPC, I am also fortified by the following reported judgments:
(i) Farman Ali's case (NLD 1991 Civil 297).
(ii) Kalsoom Bibi's case (1989 Civil 146).
(iii) Muhammad Hafiz Azmat's case (NLR 1997 Civil 150).
The petitioner failed to file affidavit alongwith the application of Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate in support of the contents of the application, lt is settled proposition of law that the relationship between the petitioner and his counsel is of principle and agent. I am fortified by the dictum laid down in case Syed and Companies (PLD 1959 Dacca 206). The relevant observation is as follows:- "A client may be understood in the sense of a constituent or customer or one who employs a lawyer or professional advisor, and, as such, the possible relationship of a principle and agent cannot be excluded from the connotation of the word 'client'.
My brother Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J has considered this proposition of law at length and considered all the case-law on the point in Nazir Ahmad's case (1993 CLC 241) and the relevant observation is as follows:- The proposition advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that where a counsel appears before the Court and states that he has no instructions, the case cannot be dismissed for non- prosecution, is not correct and goes against the weight of authority on the subject. lt is also to be noticed that while the Constitutional petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, the application for its restoration was filed on 1-10-19923, that is after a delay of one year and six months. Even today learned counsel is unable to offer any explanation as to why the applicant had not imparted instructions to his counsel.
I am also supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hafiz Faiz Ahmad's case (1996 SCMR 1207) and relevant observation is as follows:- The Advocate reported no instructions which means that the party was not interested in prosecuting the matter and in that view the Court was justified in dismissing the appeal. The question of notice will arise only if an Advocate seeks permission to withdraw from the case and follows the prescribed procedure, in such a case if withdrawal is granted normally notice is issued to the party if it is not present at the time when the order permitting the Advocate to withdraw is passed.
I am also supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sh. Muhammad Akram's case (1996 SCMR 1376).
The relevant clause of the wakalat nama is reproduced hereunder: "To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any differences or dispute that shall arise touching or in any manner relating to the said case. in view of the aforesaid clause learned counsel of the petitioner is competent to give any statement before the Court and the same is binding on the petitioner. I am fortified by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hamayun Khan's case 1972 SCMR 567), Mian Ghulam Muhammad's case (1979 CLC 518)' and S.M. Qasim and Companies case (PLD 1962 Lahore 95).
4. in view of what has been discussed above this application is dismissed as time-barred and also dismissed on merits.