BILLA vs THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal by the High Court of the petitioner's restoration application, which had sought to restore a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal questions before the High Court involved examining the cause for the non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel on the date of hearing and assessing the non-performance of requisite procedural acts, including steps for the service of respondents. The Supreme Court held that while the explanation for non-appearance might have warranted examination, the persistent neglect and refusal to perform other necessary procedural acts for the progress of the case justified the High Court's refusal to exercise discretion in favor of restoration. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners lacked a strong case on merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that appellate interference with discretionary orders of the High Court is unwarranted where procedural neglect is established.
- Whether refusal to perform necessary procedural acts justifies dismissing a restoration application for a civil revision?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in declining to restore a dismissed revision petition without sufficient cause?
- Does the lack of a good case on merits affect the determination of a restoration application for non-prosecution?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in this petition, against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner's restoration application against the dismissal for non- prosecution of their Civil Revision.
2. ' There were two questions before the High Court: (1) Cause of the nonappearance at the relevant time (during the day) of the petitioner's learned counsel, on the date of hearing of the revision; and
(2) the non-performance of other acts for completion including steps for service of the respondents. In so far as the first question is concerned, the explanation of the learned counsel, who appeared in the High Court on the same day at a later time, might have furnished a ground for examination. But the neglect/refusal to perform other acts for the progress of the case, in the circumstances of this case, could justifiably be made a ground for refusal to restore the revision petition. The learned Judge having applied mind to this aspect and having declined to exercise the discretion in petitioner's favour, we do not find any justification to interfere. The petitioners do not seem to have a good case on merits either. Leave to appeal is refused. .