MUHAMMAD NAEEM And 2 Others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the restoration of a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerned whether sufficient and good cause was shown by the plaintiff for his non-appearance on the date fixed for evidence, leading to the dismissal of his suit for non-prosecution, thus justifying its subsequent restoration by the trial court after remand. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had indeed demonstrated good cause, noting that the plaintiff was a heart patient who suffered a heart attack and left the court premises before the case was called, while his counsel was engaged in court for bail matters. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums that the restoration was lawful and properly ordered. The key principle laid down is that sudden medical emergencies substantiated by record, coupled with counsel's unavoidable preoccupation, constitute sufficient good cause for setting aside a dismissal for non-prosecution.
- Whether a plaintiff suffering a sudden medical emergency like a heart attack constitutes good cause for non-appearance to justify the restoration of a dismissed suit?
- Does the absence of counsel due to engagement in other criminal proceedings amount to sufficient ground for setting aside an order of dismissal for non-prosecution?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere in concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the sufficiency of cause shown for the restoration of a civil suit under revisional or constitutional jurisdiction?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 5-2-1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Writ Petition arising out of a civil suit, was dismissed.
2. Respondent 3 had filed a suit for pre-emption. It was fixed for evidence on 8-6-1977 when none appeared for the plaintiff and it was dismissed for non-prosecution. On plaintiff's application, the learned trial Judge had found that good cause for absence had been shown and accordingly the suit was restored (after one round of litigation during the inter-regnum) by the ultimate order passed by it after a remand, on 19-1-1982. The petitioners' revision before the District Judge under section 115, C.P.C. Failed and on his writ petition the High Court having declined to interfere, they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel tried to argue that on facts alleged and established by the plaintiff no good cause was shown for absence, therefore, the order of restoration by the learned trial Court was without lawful authority. He, in order to support his argument, read the deposition of respondent No. 3 (the plaintiff as his own witness).
4. We having gone through the same do not agree with the learned counsel. The plaintiff was heart-patient. He was present in Court. He suffered heart-attack and went away before the case was called out.
His counsel was absent because of his personal involvement in some criminal cases wherein he was making effort to get bail order.
5. Another counsel who, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, also was engaged by the respondent during the trial of the suit; therefore, it is argued that the restoration of the suit was unjustified. But it has been held by the lower Court that he was in fact not engaged prior to the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution. We have examined the copy of the power-of- attorney filed by him. It is dated 26-2-1979 while the date of dismissal of the suit for non- prosecution is 8-6-1977.
6. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any force in this petition and leave to appeal accordingly, is refused.