ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

R.A No. S- 153 of 2011.

R.A No. S- 154 of 2011.

________________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

Hearing of cases (Priority).

1. For hearing of CMA 737/2011.

2. For hearing of main case.

28-05-2018.

Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Memon State Counsel.

Respondent No.1 Abdullah Soomro present in person.

.-.-.-.-

On 14.05.2018 no one was present on behalf of applicants. Abdullah Soomro /respondent No.1 was present in person who has stated that he will argue the matter himself. Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Memon State counsel was also present.

The matter was adjourned for 25.05.2018 at 9.30 a.m with a note of caution that if the applicants’ side does not appear then this matter will not be treated as part heard. On next date, 25.05.2018, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed Kalwar Advocate held brief for Mr. Abdul Jabbar Rajput Advocate, representing the applicants and request for adjournment was made, which was granted but with following observation_

“The propriety demands that if the learned counsel for applicants had to attend some important matters at the principal seat he should have sent his associate to take down the notes as it is a part heard matter. If on next date of hearing, the counsel for applicants fails to appear this matter will be treated as de-part heard matter because the roster sitting of this bench is coming to its end.”

Today again the matter is taken up at 12.20 p.m as it is time fixed matter but despite repeated calls neither the applicants’ counsel nor applicants are present. This attitude of applicants’ side is not acceptable as it appears that they are trying to take undue advantage of the observations made in the previous orders. An Advocate is under obligation to assist the Court; and even if he has argued the matter, he cannot make himself scarce. In these matters certain clarifications was required but those queries cannot be addressed as learned Advocate for the Applicants is continuously absent for the past three dates.

In view of the above, though the matter is now de-part heard but seeing the conduct of applicants’ side both these revision applications are also dismissed for non-prosecution.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.