ORDER: Raza Ali Khan, J:- The captioned petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment/order of the High Court dated 16.11.2023, whereby, the application for restoration of the appeal filed by the petitioners, herein, has been rejected.
2. According to the facts of the case, the petitioners, herein, filed an appeal titled "Muhammad Shabir and others vs. Shakila Bibi", before the High Court. The same was pending adjudication and the date was fixed as 20.10.2023 for preliminary arguments but neither the petitioners nor the learned counsel on their behalf appeared before the Court, hence, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioners, herein, filed an application for restoration of the aforesaid appeal before the High Court. The learned High Court after hearing the arguments rejected the application while observing that the petitioners have agitated the stereotype points of cause for non- appearance in their application and failed to bring on record any sufficient cause, therefore, the appeal cannot be restored. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners, herein, have challenged the aforesaid order before this Court through the instant petition for leave to appeal.
3. Ch. M. Sabir, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner stated that the impugned order of the High Court is not in accordance with law. He submitted that sufficient cause for non- appearance was shown before the High Court, but the High Court instead rejected the application which is against the administration of justice and rights of the parties. He further argued that when the appeal was fixed for hearing, the Vice Chairman Bar Council of Azad Jammu and Kashmir announced a strike, hence, the lawyers were constrained not to appear before the Court, in this way, the High Court was enjoined upon to accept the application and restore the appeal for doing complete justice. He finally prayed for grant of leave.
4. After considering the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the record of the case it is apparent that petitioner's appeal was dismissed in default due to non-appearance of the learned counsel or his client, by the learned High Court, against which, an application for restoration of the appeal was filed attributing the absence to a strike announced by the Chairman Bar Council on the day scheduled for arguments. Despite this explanation, the learned High Court rejected the application, citing the lack of sufficient cause for restoring the appeal.
5. It is an established principle of law that when a case is dismissed in default of appearance of a party or his counsel, the party is obligated to demonstrate sufficient cause for the non prosecution of the case on the relevant date. Only circumstances beyond the control of the party or his counsel, can be considered to be a sufficient cause for restoration of a case. In the instant case the sufficient cause asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the strike declared by the Vice Chairman Bar Council. In our considered opinion, each Court is solemnly obligated to fulfill its judicial responsibilities during Courts' hours and it is not compelled to adjourn a case due to any 'strike call'. The Courts bears the duty to hear and adjudicate upon cases presented to it and it cannot evade this obligation on account of advocates being on strike, if either the counsel or the party fails to appear, prescribed legal consequences should defer the Court from aligning with a strike by postponing a case due to the absence of lawyers. Even if we presume that the counsel bound by moral obligation could not attend Court, the petitioners should appear and to request an adjournment. Unfortunately, neither the petitioners nor anyone on their behalf attended the Court for prosecution of the case. Regardless of the strike, the fact that the counsel could not appear does not absolve the litigant of all his responsibilities. Both the party and the engaged counsel are bound to ensure proper and diligence case prosecution. Non-appearance without a 'sufficient cause' is inexcusable being unfair and discourteous to the Court.
6. As stated above, it is crucial for the concerned party to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause or unavoidable circumstances justifying their absence on the relevant date, but in the instant case the application lacks a satisfactory cause. The law allows restoration only in unavoidable circumstances, a burden the petitioners have not successfully met. Given this situation, the learned High Court's refusal of restoration is justified. This prospective is reinforced by the judgment of this Court reported as titled "Khwaja Ghulam Qadir and another vs. Muhammad Sharif & others[1], wherein, it was observed as follows.
"The question of 'sufficient cause is a question of fact which is to be decided taking into consideration the circumstances and the nature of the cause which prevented a party or his counsel from appearing in the Court. Thus, where no cause has been mentioned specifically and a general averment of 'compulsion' has been made, as is in the present case, it cannot be said that there existed any 'sufficient cause' for the absence of plaintiff or his counsel".
The same view has been recorded in the cases reported as AJ&K Government and others vs. Abdul Rashid and others[2] and M. Kabir Khan vs. Mst. Anees Begum[3].
7. Before concluding, it is important to note that legal profession is a dignified and weighty vocation marked by numerous individuals holding an honorable status. While technical competence is essential for entry, the honor inherent in the profession requires exemplary conduct both within and outside the Court. Lawyers uniquely influence not only individuals but also the foundation of civil society, playing crucial role in the Administration of justice. As prominent figures in society and responsible citizens, lawyers are expected to serve as a model in professional, public and private lives. To uphold and strengthen the legal and judicial system, lawyers must approach their profession with seriousness, practicing it with dignity, respect and dedication. The survival and vitality of the profession depends on revitalizing the judicial system through dedicated service to make it efficient, effective and credible.
8. Addressing the challenge of an overburdened judiciary requires collaborative efforts between the Bench and Bar to minimize disruptions like 'strikes' and ensure timely restoration of cases. The Bar Council and Bar Associations, integral components of the judiciary should remain vigilant to prevent unnecessary strikes and facilitate effective delivery of justice. A robust and independent Bar plays a crucial role in supporting judicial system rather than resorting to strikes and boycott the Court proceedings, exploring alternative avenues such as passing resolutions, making representation and engaging peaceful demonstration, can be more effective in addressing grievance while upholding the integrity of legal profession. Strikes of Court proceedings regardless of the cause, have significant adverse effects on society and the general public, so exploring more conservative methods of dispute resolution is essential to minimize the negative impact on the legal community.
9. In the recent years, the legal landscape has experienced an uptick in strikes and boycotts of Court proceedings by legal professionals, posing substantial challenges to the efficient dispensation of justice. To tackle this issue, it is imperative for bar associations and bar council to develop comprehensive codes of conduct and rules that discourage such disruptions thereby, upholding the sanctity of Court proceedings. By proactively addressing the root causes of strikes and boycotts through the establishment of robust codes of conduct, clear guidelines, and effective disciplinary measures, Bar associations and Bar council can significantly contribute to the smooth functioning of the justice system. Emphasizing the importance of professional ethics, open communication, and collaboration will ultimately strengthen the legal community and its commitment to the timely and impartial dispensation of justice.
10. Likewise, the conduct of the Judicial Officers of the Sub-ordinate Judiciary towards lawyers and litigants sometimes may create such anomalous situation which compel the Bar Council or Bar Associations to boycott or observe strike and even boycott of Courts which is a hindrance in dispensation of justice. The conduct of judicial officers towards lawyers and litigants is foundational to the successful functioning of the justice system. Upholding principles of impartiality, courtesy, patience, clear communication, and integrity fosters an environment where justice can be administered fairly and with the utmost respect for the rule of law. By embodying these principles, judicial officers contribute significantly to the public's trust in the legal system and the administration of justice. The emphasis on fairness, communication and professionalism aims to foster an environment where sense prevails and exercise of self-restraint aspire to contribute to a more effective legal system, ensuring that the dispensation of justice is carried out with utmost integrity and professionalism by all involved parties.
In view of the above, this petition for leave to appeal stands dismissed.
[1][PLJ 2000 SC (AJK) 359]
2. [2002 SCR 100]
3. [2005 SCR 23].