ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

HCA Nos.276 & 277of 2022

(Muhammad Banaras Khokhar v. Sheikh Abdul Sattar & others)

Date	Order with signature of Judge

HCA Nos.276 of 2022

Disposed of Case.

For hearing of CMA No.925/2025

HCA Nos.277 of 2022

Disposed of Case.

For hearing of CMA No.926/2025

02.11.2026.

Mr. Jamshed A. Shaikh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Obaid-ur-Rehman, Advocate for the respondent.

**********

These applications under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC [CMAs No.925 & 926 of 2025] have been filed by the appellant seeking recall of order dated 16.05.2025 whereby HCA Nos.276 & 277 of 2022 were dismissed for non-prosecution and restoration thereof.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his non-appearance on 16.05.2025 was neither deliberate nor intentional, but was occasioned by unavoidable professional engagements. It was submitted that four other matters were fixed before another Division Bench of this Court on the same date, and learned counsel was engaged in addressing that Bench when the instant appeals were called for hearing. He further contended that a litigant should not be made to suffer on account of any inadvertence or professional preoccupation of his counsel. It was, therefore, argued that, in the interest of justice, the appeals ought to be restored and decided on their merits rather than being defeated on a technical ground.

Conversely, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, assisted by learned Assistant Advocate General, Sindh, while opposing the applications contended that the appellant and his counsel had consistently demonstrated negligence and lack of diligence in prosecuting the appeals. Referring to the order sheets and previous proceedings, it was pointed out that the matters had repeatedly been adjourned over a considerable period, and that even the last opportunity granted by this Court was not availed of. It was further submitted that Execution Application No. 22 of 2025 had been allowed, as such, the instant applications are devoid of bona fides and had been filed merely to delay or obstruct the execution of the decree.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. Under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC, restoration of an appeal is not a matter of right; the appellant must establish "sufficient cause" for non-appearance.

It is well-settled that counsel's preoccupation before another Bench does not automatically constitute sufficient cause, especially when no proxy was deputed nor pass-over sought. The order sheets reveal a persistent pattern of non-diligence, where even the peremptory "last opportunity" granted by this Court was ignored. While a litigant should generally not suffer for counsel's fault, this principle cannot shield gross negligence. Furthermore, the fact that the Execution Application No. 22 of 2025 already allowed, these applications lack bona fides and serve only to delay execution.

Finding no "sufficient cause" established, these applications for restoration of HCA Nos. 276 & 277 of 2022 are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Naveed PA