MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---This is an application for restoration of the review petition which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29-6-1999 on merits in absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said order reads as under:-- "The above case was fixed for hearing yesterday. The Advocate-on-Record filed an application for adjournment on the ground that Mr. Farooq H. Naik, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, was busy before Ehtesab Bench in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi. We adjourned the case for today. Today neither Mr. Farooq H. Naik, learned Advocate Supreme Court nor the Advocate-on-Record is present. A fax has been received by the Registrar Office containing one page without any signature stating therein that Mr. Farooq H. Naik since yesterday is not well. The Advocate-on-Record should have been present. The above fax cannot be accepted as an application which is not signed by anybody. The review is dismissed on the ground that it is not sustainable on merits."
2. This C.M.A. Has been moved for restoration of Review-Application No,58 of 1999 which was dismissed by this Court as aforesaid due to absence of the learned counsel as well as the Advocate-on-Record. Although the fax seeking adjournment of the case on the ground that Mr. Farooq H. Naik was not well, was received in the office of. The Registrar of this Court but it was not accepted by the Court as the same was without any signature. The review petition was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable on merits.
3. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that his absence on 29-6-1999 i,e, the date of hearing of the review petition was not deliberate but it was due to his ailment and request on medical ground for adjournment alongwith medical certificate was made through fax but was not accepted.
4. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we are not inclined to accede to his arguments in view of rules 6 and 15 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. Rule 6 provides that no advocate other than Advocate on Record shall appear or plead in any matter unless he is instructed by an Advocate-on-Record and rule 15 stipulates that no Advocate other than an Advocate-on-Record shall be entitled to act for a party in any proceedings in the Court. It was primarily the duty of the Advocate-on-Record to attend the Court proceedings on every date fixed for hearing and plead the matter if called upon by the Court to argue the case as he is required to be prepared with the case both in presence of as well as in absence of the advocate. In the present case neither the advocate nor Advocate-on-Record was present at the time of hearing of the review petition. Although the advocate had sent a request through fax but it was not accepted as it was not signed by anybody. Moreover, it is notified on the forehead of every cause list that request for adjournment through fax would not be entertained, therefore, request for adjournment through fax was not entertain able. The Advocate-on-Record who under the rules was bound to appear and argue the matter was responsible for the prosecution of the case before the Court as attorney of his client and the counsel and was answerable to the Court but he was absent without any intimation to the Court, which was highly discourteous on his part, therefore, his absence could not be excused without any justifiable reason. It has been noted with regret that mostly the Advocates- on-Record do not discharge their duties as they are required to do under the rules as a result of which the innocent clients suffer at their hands, who if so advised, can sue such delinquent Advocates-on-Record for compensation. Since no reasonable ground has been offered by the Advocate-on-Record for his absence who is absent even today, we do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.##TE#