Dismissal for non-prosecution

2025 SCMR 215 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.115Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185 (3)Revision petitionSuo motu jurisdictionDismissal for non-prosecutionPrinciplePetitioner was aggrieved of dismissal of his revision petition by High Court for non-prosecutionValidity

In cases where revisional Court assumed suo motu jurisdiction, only such cases ought not to be dismissed for non-prosecution

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

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.

2022 CLC 139 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.11, O.IX, Rr. 8 & 9Dismissal for non-prosecution

Dismissal of application in default without deciding the same on merits could not come within the definition of 'suit decided' and could not hit by provisions of S.11 & O.IX, R.9, C.P.C.

2022 YLRN 85 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 498 & 498-APre-arrest bailDismissal for non-prosecutionSubsequent pre-arrest bail petition, filing ofReasonable explanationScope

Where first pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, it is mandatory for the accused to give reasonable explanation of his non-appearance in the second pre-arrest bail petition and the Court was to adjudge the satisfactory or otherwise state of the explanation before deciding the petition on merits

If it reaches the conclusion that the furnished explanation is unsatisfactory, it shall immediately dismiss the petition on that score alone without discussing merits of the case.

2020 PTD 1657 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 133(1)Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched. Art. 168

Tax Reference/Application filed before the High Court under S.133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance')

Dismissal for non-prosecution

Application for restoration of the Tax Reference / Application, limitation for

Since Reference/Application under S.133(1) of the Ordinance was in effect an appeal, Art. 168 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908 was fully applicable and provided 30 days as the period of limitation for readmission or restoration of an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.

2018 PTD 441 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.115RevisionDismissal for non-prosecutionScope

No provision existed for dismissal of civil revision for non-prosecution, therefore, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, does not provide any remedy for restoration of the same.

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.

2017 CLCN 43 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 11, O. IX, Rr 8, 9 & O. VII, R. 11Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42 & 54Suit for declaration and permanent injunctionDismissal for non-prosecutionSubsequent suitRes-judicata, principle ofApplicabilityRejection of plaint

Plaintiff filed suit for declaration along with permanent injunction against defendant for mutation regarding suit property

Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution

Plaintiff's application to restore suit after expiry of prescribed period of limitation, was dismissed being time barred

Plaintiff instituted a fresh suit against same set of defendants regarding same suit property

Defendant filed an application for rejection of plaint being hit by principle of res-judicata; which was allowed by Trial Court

Validity

When subsequent suit was instituted on same cause of action and regarding same subject matter it would not be maintainable particularly when application for restoration of previous suit had been dismissed by appropriate forums

Legislature had precluded plaintiff from bringing a fresh suit when previous suit was dismissed under provisions of O. IX, R. 8, C.P.C.

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 PLD 712 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 115 & 151 & O. IX, Rr. 8 & 9Revision filed by a petitioner under S.115, C.P.C admitted to regular hearingDismissal for non-prosecutionLegalityMaxim 'vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt'Civil revision once admitted to regular hearing could be dismissed for non-prosecution

Supervisory jurisdiction of revisional court did not mean that the court could not dismiss a civil revision for non-prosecution

Revisional court was not to exercise its discretion in favour of those who slept over their rights

Where the revisional court had taken up the matter at the behest of a petitioner, the court had the power to dismiss the civil revision for non-prosecution even after it has been admitted to regular hearing, and was not bound to decide the same on merits

However, the revisional court was not to dismiss a revision petition for non-prosecution but to decide it on merits only where the court had taken cognizance of the matter of its own suo motu powers.

2016 PLD 712 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 115, 151 & 107Civil revision filed under S.115, C.P.C.Dismissal for non-prosecutionRestoration of revision petitionScope

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 did not contain any specific provisions for the dismissal and for the restoration of a civil revision, therefore, the same (civil revision) could both be dismissed and restored by the court while exercising its inherent powers under S.151, C.P.C and resort may also be made to S.107, C.P.C.

2015 CLD 33 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.9 & 22Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.9 & O.XVII, R.3Suit for rendition of account, recovery of money and damagesDismissal for non-prosecutionFailure to produce evidencePlaintiff sought restoration of his suit which was dismissed for non-prosecutionValidity

Time was granted to plaintiff at least on two occasions at his request to produce evidence but plaintiff failed to produce evidence and comply with orders passed in such behalf by Court

Consequences for failure on part of plaintiff in producing its evidence, causing attendance of its witnesses, performing any other act necessary to further progress of suit, for which time was allowed by court, as specifically enumerated in O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. were fully attracted at the time when his suit was dismissed for non-prosecution

Such order of dismissal of suit was under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C., which was to be deemed to be judgment on merits and adjudication in which rights of parties with regard to controversy in suit were conclusively determined by court

Order of dismissal of suit was a judgment on merits and only remedy for plaintiff was to file appeal against that judgment under S.22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which specifically provided that any person aggrieved by any judgment, decree, sentence or final order passed by Banking Court might prefer appeal to High Court

Application filed by plaintiff for restoration of suit was barred under S.22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and not maintainable

High Court declined to restore suit of plaintiff which was dismissed for non-prosecution

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 CLC 719 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 44Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, R. 42Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.4Writ petitionDismissal for non-prosecutionSufficient causeRefusal of High Court to restore such petition

Petitioner's pleas were that he being an old man and resident of a far-flung area could not appear personally before High Court; that his counsel at time of calling case was busy before another Bench; and that his application for restoration was supported by Case Diary and affidavit of his counsel

Validity

Counsel's affidavit would not be disbelieved ordinarily

Courts would accept restoration application liberally on showing sufficient cause by applicant for non-appearance

Applicant had brought on record sufficient reasons for his non-appearance and that of his counsel

Supreme Court set aside impugned order and restored the constitutional petition to its original number.

2013 YLR 2487 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.417 (2A) & 561-AAppeal against acquittalDismissal for non-prosecutionAppeal filed by complainant was dismissed for non-prosecution and application was filed for its restorationValidity

Appeal after admission was to be decided on merits but when complainant was unnecessarily dragging accused by filing appeal and habitual to remain absent deliberately not attending Court on dates of hearing, even though after dismissal of appeal he filed restoration application after about four months without showing any cogent reason, again remained absent and such application was also dismissed and again he repeated restoration application without any proof, as he was ill on the date of hearing but he did not produce any prescription of doctor or failed to mention about reason of absence of complainant, then the Court could see attitude and conduct of complainant for its relief against double innocent persons who were acquitted by Trial Court

High Court declined to restore appeal against acquittal which had been dismissed for non-prosecution

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 YLR 765 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.12 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, Rr.8 & 9Suit for specific performance of agreement and permanent injunctionDismissal for non-prosecutionPrinciplesAfter framing of issues, on absence of plaintiff, suit was dismissed for non-prosecutionOrder passed by Trial Court was maintained by Lower Appellate CourtValidityLower Appellate Court had fallen into error by maintaining order of Trial Court

Once issues were framed and Trial Court entered upon recording of evidence, matter had to be taken to its logical end and resort should not be made to its disposal in non-prosecution or default, particularly summary provisions of law as contained in Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for disposal of suit on merits could be invoked

Some shortfall and delay on the part of plaintiff to adduce evidence might exist but it was supreme duty of court to provide fair opportunity to parties who had approached court for redressal of their grievances and court for the sake of larger administration of justice to safeguard valuable rights of parties on merits

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court and remanded the case for decision on merits

Revision was allowed in circumstances.