Safdar Ali Butt v. Faisalabad Development Authority through its D.G. and others

Background

Background

In Safdar Ali Butt, the Supreme Court restores two revisions after prompt pleas explaining counsel's illness, with costs and strict attendance directions.

Two old civil revisions were dismissed for non-prosecution. Restoration was sought the next day on an illness explanation which was not controverted. The record did not establish a history of deliberate delay attributable to the petitioner or counsel.

Legal questions

Legal questions

Should the High Court have restored the two revisions where next-day applications gave an uncontroverted illness explanation and the record did not establish deliberate delay by the petitioner or counsel?

Court holding

What the Court decided

Prompt restoration supported by sufficient cause warrants a balanced, merits-oriented assessment subject to limitation. Genuine incapacity must be distinguished from deliberate or persistent neglect; restoration is not automatic. Refusal was harsh on this record and inconsistent with a fair opportunity to pursue the revisions.

Final outcome

Final outcome

Petitions converted into appeals and allowed. High Court restoration refusals set aside and both revisions restored, subject to Rs10,000 costs in each case, payable into the LHC Bar Association Medical Center account with receipts to the Registrar. Expeditious decision and representation at every hearing directed; connected stay applications disposed of.

Practical effect

What the decision means in practice

Both revisions were restored subject to Rs10,000 costs in each case, with receipts to the Registrar and directions for diligent attendance and expeditious disposal.

This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.

Key legal principles

Key legal principles

• Sufficient cause, prompt filing and limitation require a balanced assessment.
• Genuine medical incapacity differs from deliberate or persistent neglect.
• Neither automatic dismissal nor automatic restoration is appropriate.
• Advocates and clients retain duties of diligence; the fair-trial guarantee supports a fair opportunity on the merits in the circumstances.