2024 PLP 1399 (MLD)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----S. 5---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX , R. 4---Application for restoration of civil revision---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Sufficient cause---Applications for restoration as well as condonation of delay, was filed after sixty days of dismissal of civil revision for non- prosecution---Plea of the applicants was that on the crucial date the wife of one of applicants/revision petitioners was taken to the hospital---Validity---Delay in filing proceedings cannot be condoned lightly unless it is shown that there are sufficient cogent and well convincing grounds for such delay or the order is coram non judice or void for any strong and plausible reasons---Record reflected that despite proper service, none was present on behalf of applicants ( revision petitioners) on date fixed to represent them , notwithstanding that they were being represented by two advocates---Assuming , for the sake of arguments, that if one of the said Advocates of the applicants was not available for personal reasons , then the other counsel should have appeared before the court ,or for that matter their attorney was duty bound to represent them on the date fixed---Ground cited in the application qua restoration of the revision petition and condonation of delay was certainly not plausible, convincing and reasonable nor sufficient in the attending circumstances of the case, therefore, the same could not be considered for restoration of the same---Existence of "sufficient cause " is sine qua non for condonation of delay---Law favours the vigilant and not the indolent---Party approaching court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of grievance beyond specified period of limitation is bound to explain each to the satisfaction of respective forum because a valuable right accrues to the other side, which is indeed not the case with the present application for restoration/ condonation of delay---Application for restoration of revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
• 3. Record reflects that despite proper service, none was present on behalf of the applicants on the date fixed to represent them, notwithstanding that they were representing by two learned Advocates. Assuming for the sake of arguments that if one of the learned counsel of the applicants was not available due to his personal reasons, then the other learned counsel should have appeared before the court or for that matter, their attorney was duty bound to represent them on the date fixed. The grounds cited in the application qua restoration of the petition and; condonation of delay are certainly neither plausible, convincing and; reasonable nor sufficient in the attending circumstances of the case, therefore, cannot be considered for restoration of the same. Indeed, existence of "Sufficient Cause" is sine qua non for condonation of delay. Certainly, law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. It is settled principle of law that the party approaching court of competent jurisdiction for redresssal of grievance beyond specified period of limitation is bound to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of respective forum because a valuable right accrues to the other side, which is indeed not the case here. 2001 SCMR 1822 Ali Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others and; PLD 2611 SC 174 Qaisar Mushtaq Ahmad v. Controller of Examinations and others.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree