2006 PLP 907 (YLR)

This application under Order XLI, rule 19, C.P.C. has been made to seek re-admission of the appeal/application dismissed for non-supply of the respondent's address and the process fee for issuance of the notice. As per para.2(a) of the application, the address along with the process fee was arranged to be dropped in the "box" kept outside the commercial diary branch by the applicant's counsel through his associate Advocate whose short affidavit has been affixed. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the orders repeatedly passed by the Court on 5-4-2005 and 26-4-2005 were complied with but the address and the process fee deposited by the petitioner "were misplaced in the office" which is sufficient cause for re-admission of the appeal. Relying upon the cases of Muhammad Haleem and others v. H. H. Muhammad Naim and others (PLD 1969 SC 270) and Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi v. Raja Muhammad Sarwar Khan (PLD 1968 SCMR 817) it is stated that on showing of the sufficient cause the Court is to adopt a lenient view and re-admit the appeal/application for decision on merits. Also that the bona fide mistake of a learned counsel and his associate entitles a litigant to seek restoration of an appeal so dismissed.

2. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant. The principles settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the referred cases are that on the showing of a sufficient cause and inadvertent bona fide default, the Court should show indulgence to re-admit the appeal. In the present case as recorded in the dismissal order dated 14-6-2005, the applicant was found to have defaulted in providing the address of the respondent and the process fee for the notice despite previous orders dated 5-4-2005 and 26-4-2005 thereto. The explanation as offered in this application was rejected by this Court as being an insufficient cause and the appeal was dismissed. We are conscious that normally a lenient view in such matters should be taken. This discretionary indulgence and equitable relief can however only be extended to an applicant found to have shown a preventing and sufficient cause disabling him to comply with the orders of the Court despite his vigilance. In the present case, we find absence of the applicant's vigilance, the bona fides and the good cause. The learned counsel for the applicant has pleaded compliance with the Court's orders as a ground for re-admission and has shifted the burden on the Court's office alleging misplacing of the address and the process fee purportedly dropped in the "Drop Box". This ground is too general and too un particularized to be acceptable as a sufficient cause. It was in fact the office who reported as to the applicant's non-compliance with the orders dated 5-4-2005 and 26-4-2005. "Drop Box" explanation was rejected by the Court on 14-6-2005 and the appeal was dismissed. The applicant was held to have defaulting in complying with the orders. The applicant has re-raised, though clad in different words, the ground which was rejected by this Court as unacceptable. We also note that the revenue being a State organ has a higher responsibility of vigilance and compliance with law and the Court orders than to justify or hide its defaults behind its status as a State organ or a governmental arm. The application being meritless dismissed. S.A.K./C-141/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.