Kakakhel Industries Limited vs Market Committee, Faisalabad.
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the rejection of an application for the restoration of a civil revision petition that had been dismissed for non-prosecution by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner contended that their primary counsel had been appointed as an Additional Advocate-General and failed to inform them of the hearing date, while their secondary counsel was no longer in active practice. The core legal question was whether the dismissal for non-prosecution was justified given the circumstances surrounding the petitioner's legal representation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was no deliberate omission by the petitioner in prosecuting their case. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the civil revision to be decided on its merits. The key principle laid down is that courts should prioritize the adjudication of matters on their merits rather than resorting to technical knock-outs, ensuring that litigants are not deprived of justice due to procedural lapses beyond their control, particularly when counsel availability is affected by official appointments.
- Should a civil revision petition be restored if the dismissal for non-prosecution resulted from the primary counsel's appointment to a government office without notice to the client?
- Is it a consistent judicial practice to decide matters on merits rather than dismissing them on technical grounds?
ORDER TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.- Leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 28.1.1002 of the learned Single judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby C.M. No. 1/2001 filed by the petitioner for the restoration of Civil Revision No. 1306 of 1990 dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.9.2001 was rejected.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner was represented by Mr. M. Bilal Khan, Advocate, who was appointed as an Additional Advocate-General. The petitioner could not appear on 13.9.2001 as his said learned counsel did not inform him. His application for restoration has simply been dismissed by the learned Single judge on the ground that he was also represented by another counsel namely It. Col (Retd.) Ashfaq Ullah Khan, Advocate. Leamed counsel has submitted that said Ashfaq Ullah Khan is no more in practice and as such in these circumstances the petition merits acceptance.
3. We have considered the contentions raised above and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. Mr. Shahid Hameed, Secretary, Market Committee, Faisalabad, has entered appearance in response to the Court's notice. He could not controvert the position that the main counsel of the petitioner namely Mr. M. Bilal Khan, Advocate, who was acting for and on behalf of the petitioner, had since been appointed as Additional Advocate-General. The circumstances demonstrate that there was no deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner to prosecute his civil revision, subject-matter of this petition. Apart from this it is the consistent practice of this Court that the matters shall be decided on merits and technical knock-out should sparingly be resorted to.
4. In these circumstances we accept this petition and convert the same into appeal; set aside the order dated 28.1.2002 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, with the result that the civil revision filed by the petitioner in the High Court would be deemed to be pending before it and would be decided on merits. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.