Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AMMANULLAH SOOMRO VS Respondent: PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIR LINES CORPORATION through Managing Director/Chairman and another
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Khawaja Naveed Ahmed Title:AMMANULLAH SOOMRO vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIR LINES CORPORATION
through Managing Director/Chairman and another Case No.:Constitutional Petition No, D-2105 of 2006 and Misc. Nos. 8538 of 2007, 9831 of 2008 Date of Judgment:2008-10-30 Reported As: 2010 YLR 352 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J. Granted. 2. Through this application under Order IX, Rule 7, C.P.C., petitioner has sought restoration of this petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20-9-2007. The application is accompanied with the personal affidavit of Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Baloch, the then Advocate for the petitioner,, wherein he has stated that he was not aware about the fixation of the petition on the said date. About the absence of petitioner, it has been disclosed that the he had gone to his native place, therefore, he was not informed. We feel that such pleas taken by the petitioner and his counsel, Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Baloch, are not tenable for the reason that the case had appeared in the daily cause list of the High Court, therefore, it was the professional obligation of Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Baloch, Advocate, that he should have noted the hearing of this case for 20-9-2007. Further it was for the petitioner to have been vigilant in pursuing his case as held in the case of Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din and others 1974 SCM R 162 which lays down the principle that mere engagement of a counsel by a party will not absolve him of his personal responsibility to pursue the matter vigilantly. Besides, this application is also time- barred and no application has been moved for seeking condonation of such delay. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents such pleas have been taken which are duly supported with the case record. Accordingly, we find no merits in the application, which is dismissed.