ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

 

2nd Civil Appeal No. S- 01 of 2021.

 

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

 

06.05.2024.

 

For hearing of C.M.A. No. 183 of 2022

(Restoration Application).

 

            Mr. Manoj Kumar Tejwani, Advocate for appellant.

            Mr. Abdul Waris Bhutto, Asstt. A.G.

~~~~~~~

 

 

            This civil appeal was preferred on 3rd May, 2021. The order sheet demonstrates that on each successive date, post institution, the appellant remained unrepresented without intimation or justification. The order sheet also demonstrates that such truancy was notwithstanding notices having been issued to the appellant’s counsel for the relevant dates of hearing.

 

The same remained the case on 14.2.2022 and the order sheet records that that the appellant remained unrepresented notwithstanding issuance of notice to its counsel. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, restoration application was preferred, being C.M.A.   No.183 of 2022.

 

            Perusal of the grounds demonstrates the allegation that on 14.2.2022 the appellant’s counsel had submitted an application for adjournment along with ancillary documentation, through another counsel. The order dated 14.2.2022 makes no reference to any request for adjournment, express or otherwise, and there is no mention of any person having appeared on behalf of the appellant, to hold brief or otherwise. Learned counsel appearing was queried as to whether any affidavit of the person, alleged to have appeared and submitted an application, has been placed on record, however, he responded in the negative.

 

            Today, the only argument articulated by the learned counsel is that on 14.2.2022 the said counsel was busy before Sukkur bench of this Court. No argument was articulated as to why the appellant remained unrepresented at every date until the date of dismissal.

 

The record cited supra prima facie demonstrates the disinterest of the appellant in the present proceedings. No justification has been pleaded or articulated for the persistence absence of the appellant ever since the inception of the appeal. In so far as the date of actual dismissal is concerned, the reasoning pleaded appears to be belied by the record and the argument articulated cannot be sustained.

 

A party is required to remain vigilant with respect to legal proceedings; more so when the same have been preferred by the party itself. The truancy of the appellant from the proceedings under scrutiny is prima facie apparent and the same has not been denied by the counsel. Under such circumstances it was the prerogative of the Court to determine the proceedings and that is what appears to have been done. Counsel remained unable to justify the persistent absence and no case has been made out to condone the default. The Supreme Court has observed in Nadeem H Shaikh[1] that the law assists the vigilant, even in causes most valid and justiciable. The fixation of cases before benches / courts entails public expense and time, which must not be incurred more than once in the absence of a reason most genuine and compelling. Default is exasperating and such long drawn ineptitude cannot be allowed to further encumber pendency of the Courts.

 

Under such circumstances no case appears to have been made out to grant this application, therefore, the same is dismissed.

 

 

Judge

 

Ansari      

 

 


[1] Per Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed J. in SECP vs. Nadeem H Shaikh & Others (Criminal Appeal 518 of 2020); Order dated 27.10.2020.