Pakistan Case Law
2004 SCMR 862

Pirzada NIAZ AHMED FAROOQI through Legal Representatives WAHEED

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2004 SCMR 862
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.468‑K and 469‑K of 2002
Date2002-05-13
Judge(s)Rana Bhagwandas, Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza
Authored byRana Bhagwandas
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that refused to restore two civil petitions previously dismissed for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the petitioners' counsel. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners should be penalized for the gross negligence and indifferent conduct of their counsel, which resulted in the dismissal of their petitions. The Supreme Court held that while the conduct of the counsel was reprehensible, the ends of substantial justice demanded that the parties should not suffer for the negligence of their legal representative. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, converted the petitions into appeals, and allowed the restoration of the petitions, subject to the payment of compensatory costs to the respondents. The Court emphasized the principle that litigation should be decided on merits rather than dismissed due to the procedural defaults of counsel, provided the parties are willing to cooperate with the court to ensure a timely resolution of the dispute.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Should a litigant suffer the dismissal of their case due to the negligence or non-appearance of their counsel?
  • Can the Supreme Court restore petitions dismissed for non-prosecution by the High Court?
  • Is the imposition of compensatory costs a valid condition for the restoration of a petition dismissed for non-prosecution?
restoration of petitionnon-prosecutionnegligence of counselsubstantial justicecompensatory costsleave to appeal

' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against High Court order dated 7-3- 2002 refusing to restore Civil Petition Nos.D-225 and 607 of 1995 dismissed for non-prosecution owing to gross neglect and non-appearance of the petitioners' counsel on the date of hearing.

2. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, besides urging various grounds in support of the prayer for restoration of the petitions and adjudication thereof on merits, pointed out that dispute between the parties relates to the transfer of more than 80 acres of valuable cultivatable land, situated in District Naushahro Feroze.

3. Conversely, Mr. K.A. Wahab, learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent has serious reservations as to the grant of prayer for restoration of the petition as, according to him, the conduct of the petitioners and their counsel has not been above board in that the counsel preferred to appear before the Court of Senior Civil Judge rather than the Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad.

4. Be that as it may, conduct of the counsel may be reprehensible, ends of substantial justice demand that the parties should not suffer on account of negligence or indifferent attitude on the part of their counsel, in whom they repose full confidence. Indeed it is a matter of mutual trust between a client and counsel. On merits, we are not impressed with the grounds urged in support of the petitions, inasmuch as, affidavit of delinquent counsel was not submitted before the Division Bench of the High Court, which has been filed for the first time explaining reasons for non- appearance before this Court, but in order to ensure that the cause is decided on merits and to do complete justice between the parties, we grant leave to appeal, convert these petitions into appeals and allow the same subject, however, to the payment of Rs,25,000 by way of compensatory costs to the respondents in each of the petition within thirty days from today, failing which petitions shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

5. On the joint request of the parties counsel, High Court is required to decide the petitions on priority basis and make all endeavours to dispose of the same on merits before 30th June, 2002, provided botthe counsel co-operate with the Court. Mr. Mangi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners assures that there will be no prayer for adjournment on behalf of his clients to which Mr. K.A. Wahab fully agrees.

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.