1. ' This revision application was filed on 13-5-1992 against the order, dated 26-3-1992 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge South in Civil Appeal No,240 of 1989 whereby the judgment- decree, dated 28-9-1989 passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside and the suit of the respondent No,1 was decreed as prayed. The revision application was admitted on 1-11-1992 and could not proceed thereafter though was being fixed for regular hearing since 13-5-1993. The present counsel i,e, Mr. Muhammad Zahid Khan filed his power and appeared on 21-3-1995 and took time to prepare the case. On 15-5-1995 again he sought time as he could not bring the evidence file. On 5-9-1995 a request was made on his behalf for adjournment on the ground that he was not well. On 25-10-1995 none appeared for the applicant, however, the case was adjourned.
2. Again on 13-12-1995 and 6-8-1996 the case was adjourned by consent of the counsel and on 26-8- 1997 when none appeared on behalf of the applicant the case was dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. ' An application being C.M.A. No,918 of 1997 under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C.
4. Was filed on 12-11-1997 for recalling the order, dated 26-8-1997 and restoring the revision application to its original position. The application himself has filed his affidavit in support of the application stating that he was not aware of the date as he was not informed by his counsel. The counsel has given a simple affidavit stating that due to oversight he missed the case in the daily cause list of 26-8-1997 and as such was unable to appear. Counter-affidavit to this application was filed on behalf of respondent No,1 opposing the grant of this application on the ground that the case was listed in the monthly list which was circulated much earlier and the counsel was aware of the fact but purposely/deliberately avoided to appear. The counsel for the applicant took time to file rejoinder to the said counter-affidavit but failed to do so. Today when the case was taken up and the application was being argued he could not give an explanation in regard to the monthly list. The entire conduct of the counsel since his appearance in the case has been of casual nature indicating the sole purpose to seek adjournment and delay the proceedings. The very fact that objection was taken in the counter-affidavit in regard to the circulation of case in monthly list and the counsel even after obtaining time failed to file rejoinder giving an explanation in this regard is proof of total negligence and failure. Mr. Muhammad Yasin Kayani, who is appearing on behalf of respondent No,4 has also opposed the grant of the application and supports/adopts the contention of respondent No, 1.
5. ' The counsel for the applicant has relied on the case of Ghulam Qasim v. Ghulam Hussain (PLD 1992 SC 577). Though the case is not applicable to the present case but it was held:-- ' "At this stage it needs to be clarified that it is by no means intended that if a lawyer is found amiss as visualised by the learned Judge in this case and the misconduct is beyond any reasonable doubt there is nothing which would prevent the Court to pass any order which is deemed fit and in that eventuality as it happened in this case even the dismissal of the cause, would be justified."
6. No doubt, that it can be a human error that a counsel could miss his case while going through the cause list but in the present case since monthly list was already circulated and the said case alongwith the names of the counsel was clearly listed and no explanation has been given in regard to the said fact that mere statement of the counsel that he missed the case due to oversight cannot absolve him from his duties as a counsel. In the circumstances, this application having no force is dismissed.