P L D 2021 Supreme Court 761
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. IX, R. 8---Non-appearance of counsel for plaintiff before Trial Court---Clerk appearing on behalf of counsel---Such appearance did not constitute appearance of counsel.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. IX, R. 8---Non-appearance of plaintiff and his counsel before Trial Court---Practice in Trial Courts of granting multiple "last and final opportunities"---Such practice was strongly deprecated by the Supreme Court with the observation that it must stop forthwith.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 189---Judgments of the Supreme Court---Binding on all Trial Courts---Trial Courts must implement judgments of the Supreme Court in letter and spirit as the same were binding on them in terms of Art. 189 of the Constitution---Failing or refusing to follow and implement clear and categorical judgments and orders of the Supreme Court could entail serious penal consequences for judicial officers.
(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. IX, R. 9(1)---Non-appearance of plaintiff and his counsel before Trial Court on multiple dates of hearing---Suit dismissed for non-prosecution---Application for restoration of suit allowed with condition of payment of costs---Where revival of the suit was based upon a conditional order and such condition was not fulfilled by the applicant, for all intents and purposes the suit did not get restored.
(e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. IX, R. 9(1)---Non-appearance of plaintiffs and their counsel on multiple dates of hearing before Trial Court---Suit dismissed for non-prosecution---Application filed by plaintiffs for restoration of suit---No 'sufficient cause' shown for non-appearance---Carelessness, negligence and lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiffs and their counsel---Suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed for non-prosecution and was conditionally restored on the basis of a conceding statement of the defendants---However, such restoration was conditional upon payment of costs which were admittedly never paid by the plaintiffs---Further, at no stage was any application moved seeking extension of time for payment of costs---Even if such lapse on part of the plaintiffs as well as the Trial Court, which failed to notice the non-fulfillment of the condition imposed in its order, was ignored, the lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiffs in pursing their suit was self-evident from the fact that the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution again, for the second time---Although the application for restoration of suit was filed within time but mere filing of a restoration application not sufficient---In the application for restoration of suit the cause for non-appearance of plaintiff and his counsel on date fixed for hearing was mentioned as some important business---Such reason was unspecific, vague and generalized which could not by any stretch of the language be termed as 'sufficient cause' to fulfill requirements of O. IX, R. 9, C.P.C.---Furthermore record showed that suit was filed in 2005, issues were framed in 2006 and for the next ten years not a single witness was produced by the plaintiffs notwithstanding the reasons for such delay which in any event did not furnish any justification for the litigation in question dragging on at a snail's pace---Such delay and lack of progress was largely attributable to the plaintiffs---Application for restoration of suit filed by the plaintiffs had been rightly rejected by the High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
(f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. IX, R. 9(1)---Non-appearance of plaintiff and his counsel on multiple dates of hearing before Trial Court---Suit dismissed for non-prosecution---Application filed by plaintiff for restoration of suit---'Sufficient cause' for non-appearance---Scope---Term "sufficient cause" had not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 nor could a specific yardstick be put in place for determining what constituted "sufficient" cause and what did not; it always depended upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and it had to be left to the judicial conscience of the Court to make an informed assessment as to whether the cause disclosed by the plaintiff was a reason good enough to satisfy the Court that it was beyond the reasonable control of the party concerned to appear before the Court on the date fixed for hearing---Party seeking to claim benefit of O. IX, R. 9(1), C.P.C must establish "sufficient" cause, bona fides and due diligence.
0 Comments