IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
AT LARKANA
CivilR. A.S-10of 2017 : Sajid Ali Soomro vs.
P.O Sindh &others.
For the Applicant : Mr. Ghulam Dastagir A. Shahani
Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional
Advocate General Sindh.
Date of hearing : 03.03.2022.
Date of announcement : 03.03.2022
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. This Civil Revision was instituted in 2017 and (Late) Mr. Gulab Rai Jessrani, Advocate was the counsel for the applicant. The learned counsel expired in a tragic road accident, in 2018, and soon thereafter this revision was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.11.2018. The application for restoration was filed, admittedly within time, however, the said application was also dismissed vide order dated 13.01.2022 on the premise that vakalatnama of the present dealing counsel was not on file when this revision was dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. Mr. Ghulam Dastagir A. Shahani, Advocate submits that the death of the dealing counsel was the reason that the applicant had remained unrepresented on the relevant date and that in any event he could not have been present as the record demonstrated that he remained on general adjournment at the relevant time. Learned counsel submitted that his absence from station, with a general adjournment having been allowed thereto, was not within the knowledge of the applicant, therefore, it would be patently unjust to non-suit the applicant on such account. It is contended that these material facts were erroneously overlooked by this Court while rendering the impugned order dated 13.01.2022, hence, the present review application.[1]
3. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the original vakalatnama of late Mr. Gulab Rai Jessrani, Advocate also included the name of his young son, Mr. Vinod Kumar G. Jessrani, and that in such regard there was no cause for the applicant to remain unrepresented on the date on which the revision was dismissed for non-prosecution.
4. Heard and perused. The jurisdiction of this Court in review proceedings is demarcated vide Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. Such jurisdiction is required to be exercised upon demonstrable discovery of any new and important matter which could not have been addressed earlier and / or upon identification of any mistake apparent on the face of record.
5. It is prima facie evident that the applicant remained unrepresented on the relevant date on account of the sad demise of his learned counsel. The absence of the vakalatnama of the subsequent counsel, on the pertinent date, did not detract from the foregoing. The factum that the subsequent counsel was away from station on the relevant date, being on general adjournment, further contributed to his justification for absence. It is borne from the record that the aforesaid was not considered by this Court while rendering the order dated 13.01.2022.
6. In view hereof, compounded by the grounds invoked vide the affidavit accompanying the application under scrutiny[2], it is the considered view of this Court that a fit case for review has been set forth by the learned counsel, hence, the application is allowed and the order dated 13.01.2022 is hereby reviewed and recalled.
7. The corollary hereof is the restored application for restoration of the present revision. While it is observed that matters not proceeded with merit dismissal, however, such orders merit being recalled / set aside upon demonstration of just cause[3]. In the present matter the death of the dealing learned counsel and ancillary matters delineated supra constitute sufficient just cause, hence, in mutatis mutandis application of the same reasons as delineated aforesaid, the application for restoration is allowed and the order for dismissal for non-prosecution of this revision is also set aside. The office is directed to list this matter in the category of hearing of cases.
8. Learned counsel submit that similar matters are fixed before this Court on 14.03.2022 and that it would be just and proper for this matter to also be taken up on the said date. In view hereof, this matter is adjourned to 14.03.2022 with the note of caution that if the applicant is unable to proceed on the said date then appropriate orders may ensue.
JUDGE