Restoration

2025 PLD 692 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.145, 155 & 164Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151Dismissal for non-prosecutionTerm "final decision"ScopeRestorationAbsence of counselElection Tribunal, jurisdiction ofApplicant sought restoration of his election petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution

Respondent/returned candidate resisted restoration on the plea that Election Tribunal had become functus officio after dismissal of petition and remedy was to file an appeal before the Supreme Court

Validity

Right of appeal has not been expressly provided under S. 145(1) Elections Act, 2017

Rejection made after application of judicial mind constitutes a "final decision" and thus attracts appellate mechanism under S. 155 of Elections Act, 2017

Where a judicial determination terminates lis before Election Tribunal, it cannot be excluded from the ambit of a "decision" merely due to absence of express language

Dismissal in default is procedural termination/disposal of matter without application of judicial mind, leaving room for the petitioner to revert back and seek restoration of the petition by invoking inherent powers of the Tribunal, subject to show sufficient cause

Such procedural terminations do not constitute a final decision

Deliberate use of term "final decision" in S. 155 of Elections Act, 2017 reinforces and supports such interpretation

Provisions of Elections Act, 2017 aim at ensuring expeditious and effective adjudication of election disputes and such legislative objective is advanced - not defeated, by recognizing Tribunal's authority to restore petitions dismissed for non-prosecution, provided sufficient cause is shown

In the present cause list of cases of counsel for applicant exhibited that he was busy before other Bench of High Court on the fateful day

Medical certificate of applicant reflected that he was suffering from respiratory problem

When main petition was dismissed in December, 2024, there was smog and/or fog across the province and such respiratory problem had become severe, making it difficult for a patient suffering from respiratory disease to travel

Application was well within time and duly supported by affidavit and no serious objection was raised from the other side

Election Tribunal set aside the order dismissing election petition for non-prosecution and restored the same

Application was allowed.

2025 PLD 343 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

O. IX, R. 9Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionDismissal for non-prosecutionRestorationScopeDisinterest of applicant/petitioner in the proceedings of constitutional petition and application for restorationDissatisfaction of the court as to reasoning put forth by the applicantFactors constituting "sufficient cause" for restorationDetermination

Conduct of the applicant/ petitioner and his counsel showed their disinterest in pursuing the case and delaying/lingering on the matter without any plausible justification

Order of dismissal can be set aside by the court if the applicant satisfies the court as to sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called for hearing and if the court has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient cause for non-appearance of the party, it may pass an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit

Although the term sufficient cause has not been defined in CPC nor can a specific yardstick be put in place for determining what constitutes sufficient cause and what does not, it always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be left to the judicial conscience of the court to make and form assessment as to whether the cause disclosed by the applicant is 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

In the present case reasons mentioned in the application were based on unspecific, vague and generalized assertions, which could not by any stretch of the language be termed as sufficient cause

No sufficient cause or reason of non-appearance of the applicant or his counsel was mentioned in the application

Application for restoration was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 PLD 33 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 68-AConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityAlternate and efficacious remedyWater supplyRestorationPetitioner sought restoration of water channel for uninterrupted water supply to his fields for irrigationValidityTo deal with matters relating to irrigation, navigation and drainage, Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, was promulgated

Provision of S. 68-A of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, specifically related to powers of Divisional Canal Officer and procedure to restore uninterrupted supply of water

Divisional Canal Officer was authorized under S. 64-A of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, on an application, to conduct enquiry, as he deemed necessary, and could order interim restoration of dismantled water-course

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the matter as relevant law was available to redress grievance of petitioner and the matter fell within the domain of Divisional Canal Officer

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 YLR 1330 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionCustody of minorRestorationPetitioner/father of minor son was aggrieved of removal of the child by respondent / motherValidityRespondent/mother married in US and marriage was registered there under US lawsChild was born in US and later on respondent/mother chose to traffic the minor to PakistanSuch illegal act rendered respondent/mother incapable of making right decision in the best interests of the childRespondent/ mother destroyed the US passport of the minor and had made holes in the Pakistani passport of the childRespondent/mother was not even willing to share details of the school where child was being educated in Karachi

Despite two opportunities having been given to her to bring the child to the Court, she failed and she wished to keep the child "underground" and intended to hide herself from red warrants issued against her

Respondent/mother of minor was not a fit person to take care of the best interests of the minor

High Court directed respondent/mother to hand over custody of the minor to petitioner/father or concerned authorities acting on his behalf, and the concerned authorities shall also afford all facilities to petitioner/father to take the child back to US

High Court further directed that in case respondent/mother wished to follow suit, appropriate facilities also be provided to her as and when requested

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

2022 CLD 1013 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9, 10 & 22Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181Suit for recovery of financeSuit dismissed for absence of plaintiffRestorationDate not fixed for hearing

Suit filed by appellant/Bank was dismissed due to its absence on the date it was fixed for attendance of respondents/defendants

Validity

Suit could not be dismissed, if date was not for hearing

Such dismissal had no legal effect and there was no limitation to run against such order, which was void, a nullity and not permissible

Such order of dismissal could be set aside by invoking provision of S. 151 C.P.C.

No limitation provided elsewhere in Limitation Act, 1908 or under S. 151, C.P.C., therefore, in the light of Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908, period of three years was available for such type of applications

Appellant/Bank moved application for restoration of the suit and condonation of delay which was supported by affidavit and there was no reason for Banking Court to disbelieve that affidavit

Law favours adjudication on merits and dismissal for non-prosecution should be an exception and not a rule

Court was not to be very strict in such regard

Litigant was not to be deprived of hearing unless there has been something equivalent to misconduct or gross negligence on his part

High Court set aside the order passed by Banking Court as there was no such finding against appellant/ Bank and suit was restored

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2022 MLD 560 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional petition dismissed for non-prosecutionRestorationNegligence of counsel/petitionerScopePetitioner sought restoration of his petition dismissed for non-prosecution

Counsel for the petitioner had admitted in his application that he was well aware about the date of the fixation of captioned petition but he could not inform the petitioner as he had gone to his native place where according to him sometimes telephone signals remained unavailable

Stance taken by the counsel for the petitioner about his absence did not carry any weight and it was his professional obligation that he should have informed the petitioner about the date and it was for the petitioner to be vigilant in pursuing his case

Application for restoration of constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2022 MLD 831 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.12Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, R.9Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionSuit dismissed for non-prosecutionRestorationTime frameSufficient cause for non-appearanceDeterminationSuit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by respondent / plaintiff was dismissed for non-prosecutionTwo applications for restoration were dismissed by Trial Court but on third application, the suit was restoredValidity

Within Civil Procedure Code, 1908, time frames are provided to regulate cycle of a dispute that enters adjudicatory process

If such time frames are not abided by, the cost inflicted on public interest is debilitating

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, confers penal powers on Court to enforce prescribed time lines to move along adjudication of suit in order to conclude proceedings within a reasonable period of time

Entire scheme is meant to ensure that justice is delivered according to law within time lines prescribed by law

Order of restoration of suit absolved respondent / plaintiff of his obligation to establish sufficient cause as required under O.IX, R.9, C.P.C.

Trial Court did not bring into consideration the question of whether or not respondent / plaintiff had sufficient cause for his non-appearance while allowing his application

Trial Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction under law

Trial Court was under obligation to apply test of sufficient cause and had documented its reasons as to why its conscience was satisfied that non-appearance of respondent / plaintiff before Trial Court on date fixed was excusable in accordance with law

High Court set aside order restoring the suit and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh on application

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2018 PTD 441 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.47ReferenceDismissal for non-prosecutionRestorationScopeCausing delay in proceedingsRemedyHigh Court dismissed Reference for non-prosecution as petitioner was causing delay in decisionPetitioner company sought restoration of its Reference which was dismissed for non-prosecutionPlea raised by authorities was that there was no provision to restore Reference dismissed for non-prosecutionValidity

Provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990, with regard to Reference to High Court could not be equated with powers of Appellate Court

Under scheme of Sales Tax Act, 1990, there was no power with High Court to dismiss Reference for non-prosecution

High Court was to adjudicate Reference on merits, made to it by an aggrieved person or an appropriate government authority

Once Reference was made, it had to be answered on its own merits and not to be dismissed for non-prosecution

If there was no provision for restoration of Reference dismissed for non-prosecution, then it was equally true that there was no provision for dismissal of Reference for non-prosecution

Petitioner had lingered on proceedings for a long period of about 7 years for no plausible justification

Petitioner wanted to enjoy fruits of interim order passed on first date of hearing i.e. 22-4-2010

High Court keeping in view the deliberate negligence on the part of petitioner, burdened the petitioner with heavy cost

High Court set aside order in question and restored Reference for decision on merits

Application was allowed in circumstances.

2018 CLD 88 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9, 22 & 27Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, R. 9Dismissal of suit for non-prosecutionRestorationJurisdiction of Banking CourtScope"Final order" occurring in S. 22, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001Interpretation

Order passed by Banking Court dismissing suit for non-prosecution partook character of an intermediate order which related to procedure and not to substance of dispute involved in the case

Such order, by its very nature, could not finally dispose of rights of parties on merits and also did not deal with ancillary and incidental matters

Powers were granted to Court under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to dismiss for non-prosecution any suit in which plaintiff had not appeared and a remedy was also provided to delinquent plaintiff to approach to court for recall of such order in case he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on appointed date

Such order and remedy provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 related purely to procedure and did not entail any adjudication by court on rights of parties

Order dismissing suit for non-prosecution was not within definition of 'final order' as contemplated by S. 22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Bar contained in S. 27 read with S. 22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 could not have any application for excluding powers that inhered in Banking Court to make use of provisions of O. IX, R.9, C.P.C. for recalling of an order dismissing suit for non-prosecution

Term 'final order' appearing in S. 22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 should, therefore, be interpreted in a manner that was consistent with scope, context and principle for which Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was promulgated

Order through which suit or application for leave to defend was dismissed for non-prosecution did not fall in either of the two categories of orders and such was an intermediate order which fell in between the two

Bar contained in S. 27 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was not applicable to such kind of intermediate orders

Banking Court as defined in Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 had necessary power to allow application to restore suit/application for leave to defend dismissed for non-prosecution on sufficient grounds being shown for non-appearance of counsel/party in terms of O. IX, R. 9, C.P.C.

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 CLC 75 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. III, R. 4 & S. 96Authority of PleaderScopeSuit dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of pleaderRestorationAuthority of a pleaderConsenting order/decreeAppealMaintainabilityJudicial proceedingsPresumption of truthScope

Contention of petitioners was that their counsel, without any authority or permission got recorded his statement for withdrawal of the suit

Validity

Counsel for the applicants was duly appointed counsel in the suit, who was vested with the authority to do any act on their behalf

Statement of counsel was recorded who appended his signature in token of correctness of the same

Said statement was binding upon the applicants in circumstances

Authority of a pleader duly appointed by a person to act on his/her behalf in a Court would be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or pleader and filed in Court or until client or the pleader died or until all proceedings in the suit ended

Party was bound by the statement of his counsel unless there was contrary in the power of attorney placing restriction on the authority of counsel to compromise or abandon the claim on behalf of his client

Suit was decided with the consent of the parties on the basis of statement of counsel for the applicants

Such a consenting order/decree was not appealable in terms of S.96, C.P.C.

Appeal against the order of withdrawal of suit was not maintainable in circumstances

Nothing was on record that statement recorded by the counsel on behalf of applicants lacked authority

Presumption of truth was attached to the judicial proceedings which could not be altered or swayed at the whims of the parties

Applicants had approached the Court with mala fide intention and their act of accusing their duly appointed counsel would give a bad taste to the legal profession

Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed with costs in circumstances.

2017 CLC 752 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. XLI, Rr.17 (1) & 19Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5, Arts.168 & 188AppealDismissed for non-prosecutionRestorationLimitationCondonation of delaySecond appeal filed by appellant was dismissed for non-prosecutionContention of appellant was that under Art.188 of Limitation Act, 1908, restoration could be sought within three yearsValidity

Contention of appellant was misconceived as time for readmission of appeal for non-prosecution was 30 days as provided under Art.168 of Limitation Act, 1908

In the present case, after about 14 months, application for restoration was filed and nothing had come on record if the court-fees amount was paid to advocate

Affidavit of counsel for the appellant showed that brothers and sisters of appellant were ready to pay court fee, which legally could not be allowed after a long period of about more than three years from the date of preferring appeal

For seeking condonation of delay sufficient cause was to be shown for default and each day's delay was to be explained before the court which had not been done

High Court declined to condone the delay in filing restoration application and consider application filed by appellant for payment of court-fee

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 CLC 1572 ELECTION-TRIBUNAL-(AJ& K) Judicial Precedent

Ss. 72 & 49Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, Rr. 8 & 9Election petition, dismissed in defaultRestorationSufficient causeScopeContention of petitioner was that he could not appear before the court due to imposition of curfewValidityAzad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970 was a special law

Section 72 of the Ordinance had provided powers to the Election Tribunal for dismissal of election petition for non-appearance of petitioner but no provisions to set aside such order had been stipulated in the Ordinance

Election petition was fixed for evidence but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before the Election Tribunal

Petitioner was required to furnish sufficient cause for his non-appearance when petition was called for hearing

Non-appearance of counsel for the petitioner had not been explained in the application for restoration of election petition

Such non-appearance of counsel for the petitioner was deliberate and wilful which did not constitute a sufficient cause

Application for restoration of petition was not worth consideration as counsel for petitioner could not furnish sufficient cause for his non-appearance

Election Tribunal was not vested with the powers to restore an election petition dismissed for default of appearance of petitioner

Application for restoration of election petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 CLD 1053 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. IX, R.9Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5 & Art.163Suit dismissed for non-prosecutionRestorationLimitationDelay, condonation ofScope

Plaintiff would be obliged to show sufficient cause for his previous non-appearance and explain delay of each and every day

Principles.

2013 CLD 1053 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. IX, R. 9Dismissal of suit for non-prosecutionRestorationWords "sufficient cause' as used in O.IX, R.9, C.P.C.

Connotation.

2013 MLD 782 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O.IX, R.9Dismissal of suit for non-prosecutionRestorationWords "sufficient cause" as used in O.IX, R.9, C.P.C.

Connotation.

2013 MLD 782 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O.IX, R.9Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5 & Art. 163Suit dismissed for non-prosecutionRestorationLimitationDelay, condonation ofScope

Plaintiff would be obliged to show sufficient cause for his previous non-appearance and explain delay of each and every day

Principles.

2012 PLD 554 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Reglns. 3 & 9Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionSui-gas connectionRestorationDisputed question of factAlternate remedy

Grievance of petitioner was that supply of her domestic Sui-gas was disconnected on the ground that it was being used as commercial

Validity

Dispute of petitioner required factual inquiry as to whether petitioner was using domestic gas connection for commercial purposes and in constitutional jurisdiction detailed inquiry could not be undertaken

Provisions of Complaint Resolution Procedure Regulations, 2003, provided for an adequate remedy to petitioner in relation to her dispute of wrongful disconnection of service in supply of gas

Remedy of statutory appeal was adequate and effective and there was no basis to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court

Petition could not be decided without factual inquiry on the issue whether petitioner was using domestic connection for commercial purposes and also because an efficacious and adequate remedy was available to petitioner, which she might avail, if so desired

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.