' FAQIR MUHAMMAD. KHOKHAR, J.---This petition is directed against judgment dated 20-12-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Regular First Appeal No,80' of 1988.
2. The petitioners instituted a civil suit against the respondents for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell the land measuring 1175 Kanals and 13 Marlas situated at Mauza Salam Pur Faraz, Tehsil Shorkot, District Mang. The civil suit of, the petitioners was dismissed on merits by Civil Judge Ist Class, Shorkot by judgment and decree dated 31-1-1988. The petitioners filed Regular First Appeal No,80 of 1988, which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore by order dated 6-11- 1995 for non-prosecution on the ground that learned counsel for the petitioners had shown his inability to argue the appeal. The petitioners filed Civil Miscellaneous No,776 of 1995 under Order 41, rule 19, C.P.C. For readmission of the appeal, which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore by impugned order dated 20-12-2000. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Mr. Khizar Abbas Khan, Advocate, who originally filed the appeal had been superseded by Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate. The said learned counsel was busy before this Court and could not appear in the High Court at the time when the appeal was called for hearing. Therefore, the Lahore High Court, Lahore was not justified to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution by order dated 6-11-1995. It was further contented that the position was further clarified by the petitioners through Civil Miscellaneous No,776 of 1995 for the readmission of the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was not sustainable at law. The learned counsel relied on the cases of Mst. Zubaida Mumtaz Begum and others v. Mst. Ikram Jan and another 1990 SCM R 1025 and Slamat Bibi and others v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan PLD 1996 SC 467 in support of his contention that where an Advocate was busy before the apex Court, the High Court was not expected to dismiss a case for non- prosecution.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. We find that the petitioners had filed their appeal in the Lahore High Court, through Mr. Khizar Abbas Khan, Advocate, who was under obligation to appear and argue the appeal. The said learned counsel was present before the Court when the appeal came up for hearing. No request for adjournment was made on the ground that Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate was busy before this Court in some other case. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had withdrawn their power of attorney already executed in favour. Of Mr. Khizar Abbas Khan, Advocate or that Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate had been appointed in his place. The precedent case relied on by the learned counsel had no similarity to the facts of the present case. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the discretion exercised by the High Court does not call for any interference. This is not a fit case for grant of leave.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.