SC urges courts to deal civil cases on merit

Restores two petitions, says litigants should not suffer for lawyers' genuine mistakes

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has ruled that civil cases should ordinarily be decided on merit rather than dismissed on technical grounds, observing that courts must strike a balance between procedural discipline and the demands of substantive justice.

A three-member bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, gave the ruling while allowing two civil petitions filed by Safdar Ali Butt against orders of the Lahore High Court refusing to restore his civil revision petitions.

In a judgment authored by Justice Mazhar, the court observed that the scales of justice neither favoured automatic dismissal nor automatic restoration of proceedings. Courts must examine the circumstances of each case, particularly whether a genuine and sufficient reason existed for a party's failure to appear.

The case concerned two civil revisions, pending before the Lahore High Court since 2016, which were dismissed on February 2, 2026, after the petitioner's counsel failed to appear. Restoration applications were filed the following day.

The petitioner's counsel explained that the lawyer representing him, Shahid Azeem Bajwa, was suffering from coronavirus and had remained outside the courtroom. When the cases were called, he rushed towards the courtroom but could not reach the bench because of heavy congestion.

The Supreme Court noted that the explanation had not been denied by the opposing counsel, who also failed to establish any deliberate attempt by the petitioner's lawyer to delay proceedings.

It observed that no previous record indicated that the counsel had been negligent or responsible for the prolonged pendency of the cases.

The judgment stressed that lawyers must carefully monitor hearing dates, cause lists and court benches, make alternative arrangements when commitments overlap, and keep clients informed about case progress, potential risks and settlement offers. It said clients must also remain vigilant and regularly follow their cases rather than leave the entire responsibility to their lawyers.

The court warned that dismissing proceedings because of a lawyer's negligence, without a reasonable explanation, seriously damages professional credibility and may provide grounds for complaints of professional misconduct before bar councils under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973.

The court set aside the Lahore High Court's orders, restored both civil revisions subject to payment of Rs10,000 in each case, and directed the petitioner to deposit the Rs20,000 with the Lahore High Court Bar Association's Medical Centre.