Who has to check the status of case at High Court?

PLJ 2009 SC 272

[Appellate Jurisdiction]

Present: Abdul Hameed Dogar, C.J., Ijaz-ul-Hassan &

Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, JJ.

GHULAM SIDDIQUE and another--Petitioners

versus

MALIK MUHAMMAD QASIM--Respondent

C.P. No. 45-Q of 2008, decided on 12.9.2008.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 25.4.2008 of the High Court of Balochistan Quetta passed in FAO No. 54/2007).

Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959--

----S. 13--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 185(3)--Limitation Act, 1908, S. 5--Order of ejectment from suit premises--Assailed--Time barred--Rejection of--Leave to appeal--Condonation of delay--Duty of the petitioner--It was the duty of the petitioner to keep himself informed about the fate of his case in the High Court, and negligence on the part of the counsel to give him the necessary information would not per se constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay when valuable rights have accrued to the opposite party by efflux of time--Mere engagement of counsel does not absolve litigant of all his responsibilities and that also as well as counsel both are bound to see that appeal is properly and diligently prosecuted--Held: If lacking in his sense of responsibility to Court, opposite party cannot be made to suffer on that account--Leave to appeal refused.   [Pp. 273 & 274] A

Qari Abdul Rashid, ASC for Petitioners.

Mr. Jamal Khan Mandokhel, ASC with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR for the Respondent.

Date of hearing: 12.9.2008.

Judgment

Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J.--Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dated 25.4.2008, whereby FAO No. 54/2007, preferred by the petitioners, assailing the order of ejectment from suit premises, passed by Rent Controller, Quetta on 29.9.2007, has been dismissed, being barred by time.

2.  Shortly narrated the facts are, that Malik Muhammad Qasim-respondent herein, filed a petition under Section 13 of Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 before Rent Controller, Quetta for ejectment of Ghulam Siddique and Mujahid, petitioners herein, from suit premises i.e. shop and a house, situated at Main Road Nawan Killi, Quetta. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent, personal bonafide need and subletting.

3.  The petition was resisted, claim of the respondent was denied and the petition was alleged to have been filed with sole object to enhance rent. In view of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:--

1.    Whether the Respondent No. 1 has subletted the disputed premises to Respondent No. 2?

2.    Whether the applicant requires the premises in dispute for his personal bonafide use?

3.    Whether the Respondent No. 1 has defaulted the rent amount since 1.6.2004?

4.    Relief claimed for?

4.  At the conclusion of trial, Rent Controller, Quetta, upon consideration of the material placed before him, accepted the petition vide order dated 29.9.2007 and directed ejectment of the petitioners from suit premises. The petitioners, feeling dissatisfied, preferred appeal there-against, which was dismissed through the judgment impugned, being barred by time.

5.  Qari Abdul Rashid, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended before us that impugned judgment is contrary to facts, law and equity, thus cannot not be allowed to remain intact and application for condonation of delay was to be considered and thereafter, the matter was required to be decided on merits and failure on the part of High Court to do so, has resulted in manifest injustice.

6.  Mr. Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Advocate, on the other hand, opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and defended the impugned judgment whole heartedly, maintaining that application for condonation, of delay has been dismissed for valid reasons, which cannot be successfully challenged.

7.  Having considered the matter from all angels, we find that it is a detailed and well reasoned judgment leaving no room for further consideration. It does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual, warranting interference of this Court. Despite his best efforts, learned counsel for the petitioners, could not persuade us to take a view contrary to the view expressed by the learned High Court. It is held by this Court on various occasions that it was the duty of the petitioner to keep himself informed about fate of his case in the High Court, and neligence on the part  of  the  counsel to give him the necessary information would not per se constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay when valuable rights have accrued to the opposite-party by efflux of time. Mere engagement of counsel does not absolve litigant of all his responsibilities and that also as well as counsel both are bound to see that appeal is properly and diligently prosecuted. Counsel engaged, if lacking in his sense of responsibility to Court, opposite party cannot be made to suffer on that account. In this connection, we may, refer to the decision of Saifullah Siddiqui versus Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited, (1997 SCMR 926), wherein it was held:--

"A party does not discharge his obligation to conduct the case or to defend it by engaging an Advocate but it owes a duty to the Court to ensure that the case is properly and diligently prosecuted or defended. Any negligence on the part of his Advocate will be binding on him."

8.  Pursuant to above, finding no substance in this petition, we dismiss the same and decline to grant leave. However, petitioners are allowed nine months time to vacate the suit premises, subject to payment of monthly rent, failing which, landlord/respondent shall be entitled to get the premises vacated through police aid without prior notice.

(M.A.K.Z.)  Leave refused.