Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MALIK WAZIR MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD ALI
P L D 1953 Lahore 56
P L D 1953 Lahore 56
Before M. R. Kayani, J
Malik WAZIR MUHAMMAD‑Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMAD ALI and another‑Respondents
First Appeal from order No. 26 of 1952, decided on 3rd December 1952 from the order of Chaudhry Muhammad Din, Senior Civil Judge, Lahore dated the 28th May 1952, dismissing the application for restoration of the appeal.
Appeal
Dismissed in default for Counsel's failure to appear by time allowed on request‑variation in time of Court clock and private watch‑Preference.
S. A. Kareem for Appellant
Chaudhry Feroze‑ud‑Din and Muhammad Akram for Res pondent No. 1.
JUDGMENT
KAYANI, J.‑--This appeal is from an order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore refusing to restore an appeal which was dismissed in default.
The appeal was fixed for hearing on the 26th of May 1952, when the Court hours were from 7 a. m. to 12. Mr. Abdul Kareem, counsel for the appellant, had asked the Court to take up his case at 10‑30 a. m. as he would be away for some other work and the Court had promised to wait for him until 10‑30 a. m. The learned Senior Civil Judge finished his day's work at 10 a. m. but waited for Mr. Abdul Kareem until 10‑30 a. m. when he dismissed the appeal in default of appearance, At 10‑35 a. m. Mr. Abdul Kareem appeared and thereafter made an application for restoration claiming that he was present exactly at 10‑30 a. m.
This claim has been repeated by him in the grounds of appeal also.
I have no reason to prefer the statement of Mr. Abdul Kareem to that of the learned Judge, particularly when the latter waited for him for half an hour before dismissing the appeal. I am also of the opinion that Mr. Abdul Kareem has made this statement merely to justify his own position. In my presence, he gave the argument a somewhat different turn, namely, that in his watch the time was a minute before 10‑30, and I told him that Courts were guided by their own clocks, with which all private watches were expected to run in harmony. I strongly disapprove of statements which are intended to put a presiding officer in the wrong, merely to have an appeal restored. The time which had already been allowed to Mr. Abdul Kareem, was allowed as a matter of grace and he should have been present before 10‑30 a. m. Even then, I would not have been reluctant to restore the appeal if the question involved had not been one of judicial honesty.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
A. H. Appeal dismissed.