Pakistan Case Law
2005 SCMR 119

AHMAD and 25 others vs GI4AMA and 5 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2005 SCMR 119
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Miscellaneous Application No,786 of 2004 Civil Petition No 711 of 2002
Date2004-08-11
Judge(s)Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Abdul Hameed Dogar
Authored byJaved Iqbal
ResultApplication dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a Civil Miscellaneous Application seeking the restoration of a Civil Petition that was previously dismissed in default. The petitioners argued that their absence on the date of hearing was due to a failure by their Advocate-on-Record to inform them of the scheduled date. The Supreme Court examined whether this explanation justified the condonation of a 108-day delay in filing the restoration application. The Court held that the illness of the Advocate-on-Record did not constitute a valid ground for such an inordinate delay. Emphasizing that respondents should not be deprived of valuable legal rights acquired through the petitioners' laches and negligence, the Court found that the petitioners failed to pursue their case with necessary vigilance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, reaffirming the principle that the existence of laches is sufficient grounds for the dismissal of a petition in limine, particularly when no sufficient justification for the delay is provided.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the illness of an Advocate-on-Record constitute sufficient grounds for condoning an inordinate delay in filing a restoration application?
  • Is the existence of laches sufficient grounds for the dismissal of a petition in limine?
  • Can a restoration application be granted when the petitioners fail to demonstrate vigilant pursuit of their case?
restoration of petitiondismissal in defaultcondonation of delaylachescivil procedurelimitation

ORDER

1. ' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- The Civil Miscellaneous Application bearing No,786 of 2004, preferred on behalf of petitioners for the restoration of Civil Petition No,711 of 2002 which was dismissed in default on 20-11-2003 revolve around the sole ground that the learned counsel and petitioners could not be informed by the Advocate-onRecord regarding fixation of the date and resultantly on the date of hearing, they both remained absent. It is an admitted feature of the case that the civil miscellaneous application filed for the restoration of civil petition is barred by 108 days for which no plausible justification could be furnished on the basis whereof such an inordinate delay could be A condoned. The serious ailment of Mr. Anwar H. Mir, learned Advocate-on-Record does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of such an inordinate delay. Respondents should not be deprived of their valuable and legal rights which they have acquired due to laches and negligence.

2. In this regard; we are fortified by the dictum laid down in cases titled "Rehmatullah and others v.

3. Ulas Khan and others 1968 SCM R 975, Abdul Hamid v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 1968 SCM R 120, Rahim Bux v. Settlement Authorities and others 1968 SCM R 78, Ahmad Din v. Mst.

4. Rasul Bibi 1968 SCM R 843. There is no cavil with the proposition that existence of laches is sufficient for B dismissal in limine of petition. In this regard if any authority is needed, reference can be made to cases titled Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The Commissioner,' Rawalpindi Division and others 1973 SCM R 422, Shahbaz Khan Mohamand v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another 1975 SCM R 4.

5. We have absolutely no hesitation in our mind that the petitioners failed to pursue their case vigilantly, vigorously and woke up from the deep slumber after 108 days which cannot be ignored without C sufficient justification which is badly lacking in this case. The civil miscellaneous application being meritless is hereby dismissed.

Cited by 17 cases

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