DECISION ' This application has been made for restoration of the in default on 26th April, 1977.
2. The appeal was filed on 28th January, 1977 and it was fixed for preliminary hearing on 8th February, 1977 but there was no appearance and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. A restoration application was made and the appeal was restored to file on 1st March, 1977.
Subsequently, it was admitted and was fixed for final hearing on 26th April, 1977. On that day the representative for the respondent was present but neither the appellant nor his representative was present. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance. Subsequently, again an application for restoration was made. This has been opposed by the other side.
3. The appellant and the representative for the respondent are present and they have been heard.
Dealing with the merits the only ground pleaded for restoration is that on 26th April, 1977 the curfew was relaxed up to 10-00 a. m. And since the appellant was a resident of Landhi, he could not go back by 10-00 a. m.
4. I have considered the ground and I am of the view that this was not a sufficient cause for non- appearance. The other side has produced an extract from the newspaper showing that the curfew was relaxed from 5-30 a. m. To 10-30 a. m and again from 2-30 p. m. To 6-30 p. m. Consequently.
There is no substance in the contention that the curfew was relaxed up to 10-00 a. m. And the appellant was a resident of Landhi and could not go back in time after attending this Court. The learned Representative for the respondent also made statement at the bar that he had himself come from Landhi. Thus if the representative of the respondent could come from Landhi to attend this Court, there is no reason why the appellant could not come. No sufficient cause has been made out preventing the appellant from attending the Court on the date of hearing.
5. In result the application is dismissed.