1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. In this application prayer has been made to restore Criminal Revision No. 166 of 2001, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 4.4.2001.

3. It appears from record that though three advocates were engaged by the revisionist before this Court but on 4.4.2001 none of them had appeared either to press the application or to seek adjournment and thus the case was dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. In paragraph 2 of the restoration application it has been stated that the said revision application was listed before the Court at serial No. 13 under the heading For admission, but the case could not be marked by the office Clerk of the advocate concerned. Hence, nobody appeared before the Court to press the application.

5. Except blaming the Clerk, neither of the three advocates on record has given any explanation as to why none of them could not mark the cause list. The litigant engages the lawyers and not the Clerk. The Clerk is being employed by the concerned advocate and so it is the duty of the concerned advocate to see that the daily cause lists are properly marked. This Court time without number, has found this type of laches a