Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY VS Respondent: AKHTAR SULTANA
1976 S C M R 401
1976 S C M R 401
Present: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Salahuddin Ahmed, Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Gul, JJ
SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners
versus
Mst. AKHTAR SULTANA‑ Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1970, decided on 30th October 1975.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 10th November 1967, in Writ Petition No. 3033‑8 of 1962).
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
‑‑ O. XVII, r. 1‑Adjournment‑Practice and procedure‑‑‑Duty of counsel‑Asking for adjournment of case by telephonic message through an advocate‑on‑Record‑Most discourteous on part of counsel.‑‑[Adjournment‑Practice and procedure].
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
--- O. XVII, r. I‑Adjournment‑Neither appellant nor his counsel present An Advocate‑on‑Record stating to have received a telephonic message from counsel asking for adjournment but Advo cate‑on‑Record for appellant absent‑Respondent also not present Adjournment disallowed and appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution.‑ [Adjournment].
M. Mahboob Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
Maqbool Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record (both absent) for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 30th October. 1975.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD YAQUB AL1, J.‑‑Neither the appellant nor his counsel is present. Even the Advocate‑on‑Record is absent. It is stated by Khawaja Mushtaq, Advocate‑on‑Record that a telephonic message had been sent by Mr. Maqbul Elahi Malik who is to appear for the appellant that he is busy at Lahore and on (that account the hearing of the appeal be adjourned.
To say the least Mr. Maqbul Elahi has been most discourteous to this Court by asking for adjournment by a telephonic message.
In the result the appeal is dismissed for non‑prosecution. As the respondent has also not put in appearance, there will be no order as to Costs.
Appeal dismissed.