- “Sufficient Cause” — When a cause is dismissed for default of appearance of a party or his counsel, it is the duty of that party or counsel to show ‘sufficient cause’ as to why the cause was not prosecuted on the relevant date — If the circumstances were beyond the control of the party or his counsel, then the same has always been considered to be a sufficient cause for the restoration of suit or appeal, as the case may be. AJK Govt. v. Abdul Rashid 2002 SCR 100 (A)
- The contention that the apeeal should have been decided on merits as valuable rights of the parties are involved has not been recognised as a sufficient cause for the restoration of suit/appeal which is dismissed in default for non-appearance — It was also the duty of appellants as well to abreast their counsel of the fact that which date was fixed for hearing the appeal because there are as many as 11 appellants who though are Government officials but they cannot be absolved of their responsibility to contact their counsel to appear and argue the appeal. AJ&K Govt. & 10 others v. Abdul Rashid and 5 others 2002 SCR 100 (B)
- Appeal dismissed in default — Restoration of — Contention that the counsel for the appellant was busy in the Supreme Court — He did not produce copy of his case diary — He also did not mention that in which case he was busy before the Supreme Court — He did not intimate the High Court about engagement before the Supreme Court — He neither produced any record recording his engagement — If he was busy in the Supreme Court, he should have appeared as a witness in the application before the High Court — Application was moved after about two months and one day — The delay itself reveals that the grounds taken are not correct — An application for restoration has to be decided on the basis of evidence. Mst. Lal Jan v. M. Younas Khan 2009 SCR 14 (A) 1985 CLC 1985 rel.
error: Content is protected !!