Sufficient Cause

  1. 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. AJ&K Govt. & 10 others  v. Abdul Rashid & 5 others 2002 SCR 273 (A)
  2. After the service of notice upon the learned counsel for the petitioners there seems to be no jurisdiction to allege that the counsel for the petitioners could not note in his diary the date fixed for hearing the arguments in the appeal. AJ&K Govt. & 10 others v. Abdul Rashid & 5 others 2002 SCR 273 (B)
  3. Contention that appeal should have been decided on merits as valuable rights of parties are involved has not been recognised as a sufficient cause for the restoration of suit/appeal which is dismissed in default for non-prosecution — It was the duty of appellants as well to abreast their counsel of the fact that which date was fixed for hearing. AJ&K Govt. v. Abdul Rashid 2002 SCR 273 (C)
  4. Order IX rule 9 dismissal of suit for default of appearance Restoration of — ‘Sufficient cause’ means a cause beyond the control of a party — However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard, — Each case is to be judged in light of peculiar circumstances of a case. Mehmood ur Rehman Mehmood  v. Qazi Amanullah & 2 others 2005 SCR 251 (A)
  5.  ‘Sufficient cause’ as is laid down by all the superior Courts of Subcontinent is one which is beyond the control of a party — Petitioner had not shown any cause for his non-appearance on the date fixed — Held: High Court was justified in rejecting the application for restoration of appeal. Muhammad Kbir Khan v. Mst. Anees Begum 2005 SCR 23 (A)
  6.  Sufficient cause has to be shown for getting a favourable order from a Court — The term “sufficient cause” cannot be given an exact definition — No hard and fast rule can be laid down to cover all possible causes — Each case has to be judged in its Peculiar circumstances — Where non appearance is not intentional a strict view should not be taken to put a party out of Court — Term “sufficient cause” has been defined to include a situation which is beyond the control of a party. Naseeb Ali v. Muhammad Nazir 2005 SCR 430 (B)
  7. Term ‘sufficient cause’ is such a cause which is beyond the control of a party — Courts have not given any premium to a party which is found negligent, indifferent and careless. Muhammad Habib Khan v. Nasiri Khatoon & 11 others 2006 SCR 22 (C)
  8. Sufficient cause has to be shown for getting a favourable order from a Court but the term ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be given any exact definition and no hard and fast rule can be laid down to cover all possible causes and each case has to be judged in its peculiar circumstances and where non-appearance is not intentional a strict view should not be taken to put a party  out of Court — In some cases the term ‘sufficient cause’ has been defined to include a situation which is beyond the control of the party. Naseeb Ali  v. Muhammad Nazir 2006 SCR 221 (B)
  9. Whereby misunderstanding a party could not appear in the Court a lenient view was taken restoring a suit dismissed in default. Naseeb Ali v. M. Nazir 2006 SCR 221(C) PLJ 2000 SC(AJK) 359 ref.
  10. The contention that the appellant was under the impression that the Government might have engage some counsel, he did not appear before the Court — It does not constitute sufficient cause, rather it is a negligence on the part of the appellant — Under law a party is required to remain vigilant — Any adverse order which is result of negligence of a party could not be set aside. Superintendent of Police v. Maalick Hussain Shah 2008 SCR 401 (C)  2005 SCR 292 rel.
  11. Where the Court finds that circumstances were beyond the control of a party or his counsel, the same has always been considered to be a sufficient cause for restoration of a case. Superintendent of Police v. Maalick Hussain Shah 2008 SCR 401 (D)
  12. It was the basic responsibility of the appellant to prove sufficient cause for non-appearance through cogent and solid evidence. Mst. Lal Jan & 5 others v. Muhammad Younas Khan & 2 others 2009 SCR 14 (B) 1979 CLC 84 rel.
  13. For restoration of writ dismissed in default — The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed in default on 01.04.2008 and the application for restoration of the same was filed on 19.04.2008. The grounds taken for restoration of writ were that the counsel was busy before the Supreme Court. Moreover, originally the date of hearing was fixed as 28.04.2008, which was curtailed by the High Court on the application of other party but no notice was issued to the appellant, therefore, the appellant had no knowledge about the date —The High Court rejected the restoration application — Held: that according to the relevant provision of law it is the duty of the party or his counsel, whose case has been dismissed for non-prosecution to show sufficient cause as to why the case was not prosecuted on the relevant date. Where the Court finds that the circumstances were beyond the control of the party or his counsel, then the same has to be  considered as a sufficient cause for the restoration of case. Sheikh Muhammad Aslam v. Khursheed Anwar & others 2015 SCR 987 (A)  2005 SCR 23 & 2006 SCR 22 ref.
  14. For restoration of writ dismissed in default — contention of the respondents that under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C it is the party who shall have to explain the sufficient cause and not the counsel for the party and in the case in hand the party failed to explain any sufficient cause for non-appearance. Held: the cause shown by the appellant for his non-appearance is sufficient as no notice was issued to the appellant regarding the curtailment of the date. Sheikh Muhammad Aslam v. Khursheed Anwar & others 2015 SCR 987 (B)
  15. Varies from case to case — Generally, the sufficient cause is such a cause which is beyond the control of a party.   Saleem Akbar Kayani versus Dr. Rehana Mansha Kayani & 4 others 2016 SCR 1(B) 2014 PSC 1015, 2005 SCR 23, 2006 SCR 22 & 2008 SCR 401 ref.
  16. —See Khizar Umar Khan Versus Azad Govt. & 14 others 2021 SCR 244 (A & B)
  17. — Sufficient cause, defined by the superior Courts as one which is beyond the control of a party. Mavish Shafi Versus Public Service Commission & 3 others 2021 SCR 354 (B) 2005 SCR 23 rel.
  18. — Term “sufficient cause” is such a cause which is beyond the control of a party. Muhammad Rasheed & others              v. Custodian Evacuee Property & others  2022 SCR 247 (C)
  19. —Means a cause beyond the control of a party. Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Sarfraz & others 2022 SCR 502 (B) 2006 SCR 22 Rel.
  20. — See Azad Govt. & others versus Muhammad Shabir Khan & others 2023 SCR 816 (B)
error: Content is protected !!