MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment/order, dated 3-7-1997 of the Lahore, High Court through which application filed by the petitioners for re-admission of their appeal dismissed for nonprosecution through order, dated 26-2-1997 has been dismissed.
2. The appeal (R.S.A. No. 380 of 1966) was filed by Ch. Muhammad Rafique Chohan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, their said learned counsel had gone abroad when the appeal was listed for hearing on 24-10-1996 on which date it was adjourned to 27-11-1996, from 27-11-1996, it was adjourned to 26-2-1997 when the same was dismissed for non-prosecution.
On all these dates, the name of learned counsel for the petitioners namely Ch. Muhammad Rafique Chohan, Advocate continued to be printed in the cause list. Tile case of the petitioners was that they engaged Ch. M.Z. Khalil, Advocate on 27-11- 1996 but he did not file Wakalatnama in the Court but kept the same with him and appended the same with the application seeking re-admission of the appeal in order to show that he had been sustained on 27-11-1996 by the petitioners as counsel in the appeal, as such non-appearance of their original counsel as also the petitioners was not intentional. The learned Judge in Chamber held that it was case of gross negligence on the part of the petitioners, therefore, the application was dismissed through the impugned judgment/order, dated 3-7-1997, against which leave to appeal has been sought.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment reported as Furman Ali v.
Muhammad Yousaf A1 I and another (PLD 1992 SC 330) in order to contend that tor negligence of the counsel in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners should not be penalized. The facts of the reported case were different. It was the negligence of the officer of the Court to whom Wakalatnama was submitted for placing the same on the record but he did not do so on account of which the name of the original counsel who had already been substituted was printed in the cause-list and it was in these circumstances that it was held that the negligence of the officer of the Court could not be allowed to prejudice the case of the petitioners as once the Wakalatnama has been submitted to the concerned quarters in the Court, it should have been placed on the record, as such, it was not a case of negligence of the learned counsel for the party.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners when questioned submitted that on the Wakalatnama submitted by Ch. M.Z. Khalil, Advocate, 27-11- 1996 date has been mentioned as the date on which he was engaged but when further inquired he frankly admitted that the Court-fee stamp affixed on the said Wakalatnama is not of-the said date and that the same was also not submitted in the concerned Branch of the High Court for placing the same on the record but was kept by the learned counsel with him and it was filed only alongwith the application seeking re-admission of the appeal.
5. In these circumstances, the learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court was legally justified in holding that it was a case of gross negligence and we do not feel disposed to interfere in the impugned order which does not suffer from any illegally, therefore, this petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.