ORDER EHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRI, J. - This is an application for restoration of the Transfer tor non- prosecution on 18.11.1998. Since the respondent was present, therefore, notice was issued to him.
The respondent is represented and has contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he was present but case was left over and subsequently it transpired that the Transfer Application has been dismissed for non-prosecution. It is added that non- appearance was neither intentional nor due to negligence.
3. On the other had, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this application is barred by limitation as it has been moved on 19.12.1998 and not accompanied by application for condonation of delay. It is added that the case was repeatedly called and he was present as is clear from the record but as nobody appeared for the petitioner, therefore, application was dismissed.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The justification today urged in the arguments is not contained in the application. The same is clearly an after thought. There is no explanation for the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the application. The application is without any merit and also barred by limitation. The same is accordingly dismissed both as barred by limitation and on merits.