Messrs ZEENIT TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Other
This matter originated from the dismissal of a writ petition for default by the Lahore High Court due to the absence of the petitioner and its counsel. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking restoration, arguing that the case was placed on a supplementary cause list that was not provided to them, rather than the regular weekly list. The High Court dismissed this application, citing the publication of the supplementary list and the lack of a formal condonation of delay application. A second restoration application was similarly dismissed, relying on precedents regarding counsel absence. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns whether a dismissal for default is justified when a party claims lack of notice due to the non-receipt of a supplementary cause list, and whether precedents involving counsel absence in regular lists are applicable to situations involving supplementary lists. The Supreme Court held that these contentions required deeper examination, necessitating a full hearing on the merits of the restoration application.
- Can a writ petition be dismissed for default if the cause was listed in a supplementary list not provided to the petitioner?
- Does the failure to provide a supplementary cause list to counsel constitute sufficient grounds for restoring a dismissed petition?
- Are precedents regarding counsel absence in regular cause lists distinguishable from cases involving supplementary cause lists?
- Order IX Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. DORAB PATEL, J.--The petitioner's writ petition was admitted by the Lahore High Court on the 7th of July, 1979 and it came up for hearing on the 10th of October, 1979. But, as the petitioner and its learned counsel were absent the petition was dismissed for default.
2. On the 14th of November, 1979, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9 in which it prayed that its writ petition be restored to regular hearing and its explanation for its failure to be present in the High Court on 10-10-1979 was that the writ petition had not been shown in the weekly cause list of the Court, but had been suddenly put in the supplementary cause list, which had not been supplied to the petitioner, or its learned counsel. Therefore, the petitioner's further averment in its application was that "the question of limitation would not arise." And, it is relevant to point out that the petitioner said in its application that it had learned of the dismissal of its writ petition only three days earlier.
3. This application was dismissed on 20th of November, 1979 by a learned Judge of the High Court on the ground that the petitioner had not filed "any application for condonation of delay before the office objection" and on the further ground that he had "checked up to find that the supplementary list was published".
4. Now, it was never the petitioner's case that the Bar Association had not published a supplementary list. Its case was that the Bar Association had failed to send a copy of the supplementary list to its Advocate or to it, therefore, the same day the petitioner filed a second restoration application reaffirming the grounds taken by it in its first restoration application, but this application too was dismissed by the learned Judge on 21-11-1979 and in dismissing the application, the learned Judge relied on judgments of the Lahore High Court reported in Iqbal Ahmad v. Sharifun Nisa PLD 1967 Lah. 1098 and in Sawab Khan v. Dr. Abdul Hamid Khan PLD 1968 Lah. 1224. Hence this petition for leave.
5. Learned counsel submitted that despite successive applications, the learned Judge had failed to examine the petitioner's contention that the Bar Association had not supplied a copy of its supplementary list to the petitioner's learned counsel and that the judgments relied upon by the learned Judge were distinguishable, because they related to case in which counsel were absent, although their cases had been shown in the weekly list which had been received by them. Both these submissions require examination, therefore, we have to grant leave. Security in the sum of Rs.1,000.
6. Notice of the stay application for next month and meanwhile the petitioner will pay its social security contribution only to those employees whose daily wages do not exceed Rs.20 per day.