Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XLI, Rr. 11, 12, 16 & 17---Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution---Appeal not fixed for hearing but for procuring attendance/service of respondent---Effect---Regular Second Appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26.10.2022---Record showed that on previous date, appeal had been adjourned for submission of correct address of respondent and for issuance of notice parvee, as respondent had reportedly shifted residence---Supreme Court held that on 26.10.2022 appeal was not fixed for hearing, rather it was fixed for procuring attendance of respondent by issuance of notice---High Court, in such circumstances, ought not to have dismissed appeal for non-prosecution, but should have passed an order in relation to service/proceedings for procuring attendance---Order XLI, Rule 17(1), C.P.C. applies where appeal is called on for hearing and appellant fails to appear; where appeal is not fixed for hearing, dismissal in default under said provision is not justified. Cited Cases: • Tehsil Municipal Administrator, Faisalabad v. Muhammad Saleem and others 2016 SCMR 2009 • Manager, Jammu & Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678 (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XLI, Rr. 11 to 17---Expression “called on for hearing”---Meaning---Service of respondent and completion of earlier procedural steps---Supreme Court held that expression “called on for hearing” in Order XLI, Rule 17 presupposes completion of earlier steps envisaged by Rules 11 to 16 of Order XLI, C.P.C.---After appeal crosses preliminary hearing stage under Rule 11, appeal cannot be heard and decided without service of respondent or his counsel---Effective hearing of appeal means a date on which arguments are to be heard, which presupposes service of parties---Court must first ascertain whether respondent has been duly served before treating matter as one fixed for hearing---Where respondent had not yet been served and matter was pending for issuance of notice or correction of address, appeal could not be treated as having been called on for hearing for purposes of dismissal under Order XLI, Rule 17, C.P.C. Cited Case: • Manager, Jammu & Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678 (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XLI, R. 17---Dismissal of appeal for non-appearance of appellant---Discretionary power---Mechanical dismissal deprecated---Supreme Court reiterated that under Order XLI, Rule 17, C.P.C., Court “may” dismiss appeal for non-appearance of appellant when appeal is fixed for hearing, therefore power is discretionary and not mandatory---Court is not bound in every case to dismiss appeal in default and may adjourn matter to another date where circumstances so require---Dismissal of appeal without appreciating that appeal was not fixed for hearing and without considering discretionary nature of power amounted to mechanical exercise of jurisdiction---Such order could not be sustained. Cited Case: • Manager, Jammu & Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678 (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---- ----Arts. 168 & 181---Application for restoration/re-admission of appeal---Appeal not dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 17(1), C.P.C.---Applicable limitation---Article 168 provides thirty days for application seeking re-admission of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution under Order XLI, Rule 17(1), C.P.C.---Supreme Court held that since dismissal order dated 26.10.2022 could not be termed as an order passed under Order XLI, Rule 17(1), C.P.C., Article 168 was not attracted---In such circumstances, residuary Article 181 applied, providing limitation period of three years---Restoration application filed on 08.10.2024 was therefore within time---High Court erred in dismissing restoration application as barred by limitation. Cited Case: • Tehsil Municipal Administrator, Faisalabad v. Muhammad Saleem and others 2016 SCMR 2009 (e) Administration of justice---- ----Act of Court---Party should not suffer due to act of Court---Technicalities not to defeat merits---Supreme Court held that petitioners should not be made to suffer due to act of Court, particularly when appeal had been dismissed on a date not fixed for hearing---Mere technicalities, unless presenting insurmountable hurdles, should not defeat ends of justice, as legal formalities exist to safeguard paramount interest of justice---In circumstances, restoration of appeal for decision on merits was in interest of justice, subject to costs because petitioners’ conduct was also not aboveboard. Cited Cases: • Abdul Qudoos v. Commandant Frontier Constabulary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and another 2023 SCMR 334 • Sherin and 4 others v. Fazal Muhammad and 4 others 1995 SCMR 584 • The State v. Asif Adil and others 1997 SCMR 209 • Sajawal Khan v. Wali Muhammad and others 2002 SCMR 134 • Jawad Mir Muhammadi and others v. Haroon Mirza PLD 2007 SC 472 • Zulfiqar and others v. Shahadat Khan PLD 2007 SC 582 • Homeo Dr. Asma Noreen Syed v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary Health Department and others 2022 SCMR 1546 • Mian Shehzad-ud-Din and 4 others v. Member, Board of Revenue S&E Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another 2002 YLR 3755 (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----Restoration of Regular Second Appeal---Costs imposed to balance equities---Supreme Court found impugned order dismissing restoration application unsustainable---Regular Second Appeal was restored to its original number and deemed pending before Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, for decision afresh after hearing parties in accordance with law within one month from receipt of judgment---However, as petitioners’ conduct was not aboveboard, they were burdened with costs of Rs.50,000 to be paid to respondents before High Court on first date of hearing; in case of failure, High Court was empowered to pass appropriate order. Disposition: Civil Petition was converted into appeal and allowed; impugned order dated 03.11.2025 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan was set aside; RSA No.50 of 2010 titled “Abdul Rehman, etc. v. Syed Jaffer Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs.” was restored/deemed pending before High Court for fresh decision after hearing parties within one month from receipt of judgment; petitioners were directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000 to respondents before High Court on first date of hearing, failing which High Court may pass appropriate order.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Arts. 4, 9 & 10A ---- Right to fair and timely trial ---- Delay in adjudication as constitutional infraction ---- Access to justice undermined by systemic delay Fourteen years elapsed between the original auction of immovable property and the final hearing before the Supreme Court, during which the petitioner’s appeal remained pending for over a decade before the High Court. The Court held that such delay, though administrative on the surface, constitutes a constitutional violation of Articles 4, 9, and 10A, which guarantee the right to due process and meaningful access to justice. Held, justice delayed for such an extraordinary duration is justice effectively denied; prolonged pendency rendered the petitioner’s claim moot, fragile, and extinguished by time. Remedy without timeliness is not a remedy in law. Cited Cases: • Baz Muhammad Kakar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 923 • Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 • Liaqat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 504 • Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1445 • Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324 • Government of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon PLD 1993 SC 341 • Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416 (b) Civil Procedure --- Execution proceedings --- Challenge to auction of immovable property --- Concurrent findings by courts below --- No interference by Supreme Court Petitioner challenged the 2011 auction of immovable property conducted in execution of a 2010 money decree. His objections were dismissed at trial, and the appellate challenge before the High Court remained pending for over ten years. The Supreme Court, after independent examination of the record, upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below and found no merit in the objections to the auction proceedings. Petition was also dismissed for non-prosecution as no representative appeared to argue the case, despite notice. (c) Judicial governance --- Systemic delay --- Structural reforms required --- Judicial credibility dependent on timely adjudication The Court observed that over 2.2 million cases were pending nationwide, including nearly 56,000 before the Supreme Court itself. Such delays erode public trust, discourage economic investment, distort contractual enforcement, and disproportionately burden the vulnerable. Held, delay is not merely a docket management issue but a challenge to constitutional governance and the legitimacy of the justice system. It calls for intelligent case management, elimination of queue-jumping, prioritization of constitutional and high-impact matters, and technology-assisted scheduling using artificial intelligence tools without compromising judicial discretion. (d) Comparative constitutional law --- Judicial efficiency --- International models of reform cited --- Technology and procedural restructuring as imperatives The Court referenced judicial innovations in Singapore, UK, Brazil, Estonia, Canada, China, Denmark, and Australia, where digital dashboards, automated scheduling, and e-filing systems have transformed judicial delivery from passive docket handling to active justice management. Held, Pakistani courts must draw inspiration from such global experiences and adopt institutional reform through administrative discipline, structural redesign, and technological modernization to combat the endemic delay and deliver timely, citizen-centric justice. Disposition: Petition dismissed both on merits and for non-prosecution. Supreme Court calls for urgent judicial reform to ensure timely access to justice.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----O. IX, Rr. 8 & 9—Dismissal of suit for non-prosecution—Restoration—Failure to show sufficient cause—Effect of framing of issues—Date of hearing Trial Court dismissed suit for non-prosecution when plaintiff failed to appear on 29.03.2023, despite case being fixed for evidence—Plaintiff filed application for restoration with condonation of delay citing illness of his father and absence of counsel—Application dismissed as unsatisfactory; appellate court upheld the order—Supreme Court affirmed, holding that once issues are framed, suit becomes ripe for hearing—Presence of interlocutory applications does not bar court from proceeding with suit if evidence stage has been reached—Held, restoration requires cogent explanation of absence; mere pendency of other applications is not valid ground—Distinction drawn between pre-issue appearance date and post-issue date of hearing—Dismissal upheld. Cited Case: • Abdul Latif v. Aqeel Ahmed (2006 SCMR 789) (relied) (b) Civil Procedure—Restoration of suit—Discretionary relief—Standards of explanation Belated restoration application not supported by credible justification—Presence of counsel in court on relevant day contradicted plea of unavoidable absence—Supreme Court observed that courts retain discretion to dismiss suit post-framing of issues if plaintiff fails to prosecute—No interference warranted where lower courts exercised discretion judiciously. Disposition: Leave to appeal declined—Petition dismissed—Order of dismissal for non-prosecution sustained due to lack of sufficient cause.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 100, O. XVII, R. 3---Second appeal---Concurrent findings of facts---Scope---Petitioner’s complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and subsequent civil suit were dismissed for non-prosecution and failure to produce evidence---Trial Court dismissed petitioner’s adjournment application, noting repeated opportunities granted earlier, and proceeded to decide the suit under O. XVII, R. 3, CPC due to absence of petitioner and his counsel---Suit dismissed for lack of evidence---First and Second Appellate Courts upheld dismissal, recording petitioner’s non-serious attitude---Held, that scope under S. 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law and does not warrant interference with concurrent findings of fact unless there is misreading or non-reading of evidence---Petitioner failed to raise or substantiate any such ground before lower courts---Ground that petitioner’s side was not formally closed was not raised before Appellate Courts and hence could not be agitated for the first time before Supreme Court---No illegality, infirmity or misapplication of law found---Leave to appeal refused.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O. XVII, R. 3---Dismissal of suit---Failure to produce evidence---Last opportunity availed and further adjournment denied due to absence of party and counsel---Adjournment application dismissed on ground of repeated delays and lack of due diligence---Trial Court within its jurisdiction to proceed under O. XVII, R. 3 and decide the case on merits---Held, Order XVII, Rule 3 CPC empowers Court to decide suit if party fails to produce evidence despite opportunity---Such decision not violative of due process if party had been afforded adequate chances---No indulgence warranted in absence of bona fide effort by petitioner to prosecute claim.Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal refused.Cited Legislation:• Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 100, O. XVII, R. 3• Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure—Restoration of case dismissed for non-prosecution ----“Sufficient cause” — Meaning, scope, and limits — The expression sufficient cause signifies a genuine, bona fide, and legally acceptable reason preventing compliance with procedural obligations, free from negligence or indifference. Courts adopt a liberal interpretation to advance substantial justice, but such liberality does not extend to habitual default or lack of bona fide diligence. Restoration is a discretionary relief, to be exercised judicially where default is unavoidable and promptly rectified. (b) Restoration—Burden of proof—Duty of litigant ----Failure to appear; alleged omission from cause list— Petitioners’ plea that their case was not shown in the uploaded cause list and that counsel was absent due to his mother’s demise held insufficient. No certified copy of the cause list was produced, nor any step taken to verify case status or arrange alternate representation. Parties must actively monitor proceedings and communicate with counsel; mere reliance on an online cause list shows lack of due diligence. (c) Counsel’s bereavement—Effect While death in counsel’s family is a sympathetic circumstance, it does not automatically constitute sufficient cause unless the litigant acts promptly, informs the court, or arranges substitute representation. Petitioners’ failure to do so reflected indifference rather than bona fide impediment. (d) Judicial discretion—Limits of liberal interpretation Courts cannot condone negligence under the pretext of substantial justice; restoration without genuine cause would burden the judicial system and prejudice the opposing party’s right to expeditious adjudication. Disposition: Petitions for leave to appeal dismissed; no sufficient cause shown for restoration; High Court’s order dated 01-11-2024 upheld. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure: ----Review application—Dismissal of case for non-prosecution—Restoration—Date of knowledge—Scope—Petitioner’s application for restoration of the case dismissed for non-prosecution did not disclose the date of knowledge of such dismissal—Held, application lacking material particulars could not justify restoration—Petitioner’s reliance on Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi (PLD 1970 SC 1) and Farman Ali v. Muhammad Yousaf Ali (PLD 1992 SC 330) was misplaced as the cited precedents were found inapplicable—Principle reaffirmed that revisional courts assuming suo motu jurisdiction may not dismiss such matters for non-prosecution, but such exception did not apply to the instant case—No error or jurisdictional defect identified in impugned order—Petition dismissed and leave to appeal refused. Petition dismissed. ----Cited Cases: • Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others PLD 1970 SC 1 • Farman Ali v. Muhammad Yousaf Ali and another PLD 1992 SC 330

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ----Arts. 202, 203 & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order IX, Rules 8 & 9—Dismissal of suit for non-prosecution—Restoration of suit—Sufficient cause—Scope of judicial discretion—Case management system—Need for procedural efficiency. The respondent's civil suit was dismissed for non-prosecution under Order IX, Rule 8, C.P.C., after failing to produce documentary evidence despite multiple opportunities. However, the suit was restored under Rule 9 upon the respondent's application, which was filed within the prescribed limitation period under Article 163 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court held that sufficient cause for non-appearance on the specific date must be established independently of prior procedural failures. The restoration application highlighted administrative confusion due to the transfer of the case, disorganized court records, and subsequent miscommunication, all of which constituted sufficient cause. The Court emphasized that past conduct of non-appearance cannot solely dictate the outcome of a restoration application if sufficient cause is established for the specific day of dismissal. Procedural rules under the C.P.C. must serve justice rather than obstruct it. The judiciary must aim for substantial justice and avoid technical hurdles that defeat the rights of litigants. The Court further underscored the need for a Case Management System in both civil and criminal laws to address delays, ensure timelines for each stage of litigation, and impose consequences for non-compliance. Cited Cases: Rai Muhammad through legal heirs v. Ejaz Ahmed (PLD 2021 SC 761) Kh. Muhammad Fazil v. Mumtaz Munawar Khan (2023 SCP 368) SKB-KNK Joint Venture Contractor v. Water and Power Development Authority (2022 SCMR 1615) Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din (1974 SCMR 162) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali (PLD 1963 SC 382) (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----Order IX, Rules 8 & 9—Dismissal of suit for non-prosecution—Restoration of suit—Principles governing judicial discretion. The dismissal of a suit for non-prosecution under Rule 8 requires the absence of the plaintiff on the date of hearing, while Rule 9 provides a remedy for restoration if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown. The Court reiterated that sufficient cause must be assessed specifically for the day of non-appearance, independent of past conduct. Restoration is not a matter of right but judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and in alignment with the principles of substantial justice. (c) Administration of Justice—Substantial Justice vs Procedural Technicalities—Role of judiciary in minimizing delays. Justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of procedural technicalities. The judiciary must interpret procedural laws liberally to serve the cause of justice. Courts must strive to minimize delays through proper docket management and timely interventions to ensure fair trials. The Supreme Court emphasized the introduction of a Case Management System in both the C.P.C. and Cr.P.C. with stage-wise timelines and accountability mechanisms for non-compliance. (d) Case Management System—Judicial Efficiency—Legislative Reforms. The Court highlighted the urgent need for dedicated Case Management Chapters in the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) and Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to streamline litigation, enforce timelines, and hold parties accountable. Proper implementation of such reforms would reduce backlog, enhance transparency, and restore public confidence in the judiciary. (e) Justice Delayed vs Justice Hurried—Balancing Judicial Expediency and Fair Trial. The maxim "Justice delayed is justice denied" underscores the importance of timely justice, but equally, "Justice hurried is justice buried" serves as a caution against rushed proceedings. The Court stressed maintaining a balance between expeditious disposal of cases and adherence to the principles of due process and fair trial. Disposition: Civil Petitions dismissed; leave to appeal refused. Trial Court directed to decide the civil suit expeditiously within six months. Recommendations made for incorporating a Case Management System in both C.P.C. and Cr.P.C.

Summary: Matter listed for hearing of main case could be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Summary: Background:This case involves Mst. Khair-Un-Nisa and other petitioners against the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission and other respondents. The petitioners initially filed a writ petition to challenge certain decisions made by land authorities regarding the allotment and registration of land. The petition went through a series of procedural challenges, including dismissals for non-prosecution and subsequent restorations, along with various motions for amendments and the impleadment of necessary parties.----Issues:Whether the necessary parties were properly impleaded to ensure the adjudication of the dispute could proceed fairly.Whether the petitioners were justified in seeking amendments to the writ petition to clarify and assert claims against additional respondents.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court reviewed the petitioners' application for amendments under Order VI, Rule 17, read with Order I, Rule 10(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court allowed the amendments, finding that they were not contradictory or destructive to the already taken plea but were an elaboration of the already pleaded facts. The court emphasized the importance of allowing amendments to ensure justice is done and that both parties have a fair opportunity to present their case. The application for amendments was accepted, and the petitioners were directed to submit an amended constitutional petition.-----Citations/Precedents:Order VI, Rule 17, and Order I, Rule 10(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Allow amendments to pleadings to ensure all relevant and necessary matters are properly before the court.Haji Sultan Abdul Majeed (Decd) through Mehboob Sultan and Habib Sultan and others v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar (Decd) through Mah Jabeen and others (2018 SCMR 82) - Outlines the criteria for amendments being allowable when they are consistent with existing claims and do not introduce contradictions.Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 345) and Semco Salvage Pte. Ltd. v m.v. Kaptan Yusuf Kalkavan and another (1993 SCMR 593) - Highlight the flexibility of the courts in allowing amendments for the comprehensive and just resolution of disputes.

Summary: IssuesWhether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the service appeal on the grounds of non-maintainability and non-prosecution.Whether the change in the seniority list dated 04.06.2003 was lawful and justified.Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide on matters related to the seniority of judicial officers.Whether the prolonged pendency of the service appeal for 19 years without a decision on merits constituted an injustice.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal?s dismissal of the service appeal for non-maintainability was erroneous. The Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction under Section 3-B of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to decide matters related to the terms and conditions of service of members of the subordinate judiciary.The Tribunal?s decision to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution also created serious inconvenience for the petitioner, preventing him from seeking the restoration of the appeal.The Court emphasized the importance of the right to appeal and the obligation of appellate forums to explore questions of law and facts thoroughly to ensure justice.The Court highlighted the significant delay of 19 years in deciding the service appeal, stressing the need for timely adjudication of such matters to avoid frustration and despondence among judicial officers.The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal?s impugned order dated 05.03.2022, converted the civil petition into an appeal, and remanded the matter to the Sindh Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.----Citations/Precedents:Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973Section 2(bb): Definition of a member of the subordinate judiciarySection 3-B: Establishment of a Tribunal for members of the subordinate judiciarySection 4: Right of appealSection 5: Powers of the TribunalGul Taiz Khan Marwat v. Registrar Peshawar High Court, (PLD 2021 SC 391)Bashir Ahmed Badini, D&SJ & others v. Hon?ble Chairman & Member of Administration Committee and Promotion Committee of Hon?ble High Court of Balochistan, (2022 SCMR 448=2022 PLC (C.S) 610)Homoeo Dr. Asma Noreen Syed v. Government of the Punjab through its Secretary Health, Department & others, (2022 SCMR 1546=2022 PLC (C.S) 1390)