Technicalities should not defeat justice, SC rules

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday set aside a Lahore High Court (LHC) Multan bench order that had dismissed a restoration application in a second appeal, observing that mere technicalities, unless they present insurmountable hurdles, should not defeat the ends of justice.

“The principal object behind legal formalities is to safeguard the paramount interest of justice,” emphasised Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan in a judgement he authored.

The observation came on a civil petition filed against the Nov 3, 2025 high court order, which the petitioner, Abdul Rehman, challenged before the SC to seek restoration of his second appeal.

Consequently, the SC restored the second appeal before the Multan bench of the LHC and directed the high court to decide the matter afresh within one month.

Observes petitioners must not suffer due to act of court, directs LHC to decide matter afresh within a month

In a seven-page order, Justice Hassan observed that petitioners should not suffer because of an act of the court and that it would be in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to be decided on merits, since the application seeking restoration before the high court had been filed within time.

The petitioner had filed a restoration application for his second appeal before the high court, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution on Oct 26, 2022. Nearly two years later, on Oct 8, 2024, the petitioner filed restoration applications along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

The high court dismissed both applications on Nov 3, 2025, prompting the filing of the present civil petition before the SC.

During the hearing, petitioner’s counsel Haji Muhammad Tariq Aziz Khokhar argued that Oct 26, 2022 was not a date fixed for hearing when the appeal was dismissed. The matter had actually been fixed for procuring the attendance of the respondent, late Syed Jaffar Hussain Razvi, through the issuance of a notice.

Therefore, he argued, no penal order should have been passed by the high court against the petitioners. However, despite these submissions, the point was not considered, resulting in the rejection of the second appeal by the high court.

The counsel contended that the high court had erred in passing a penal order of dismissal for non-prosecution and sought a remand of the case for a decision on merits.

On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel, Advocate Muhammad Fareed Chaudhary, supported the high court order and requested dismissal of the civil petition.

The SC examined the record and found that on Oct 20, 2022, the petition had been adjourned for submission of the respondent’s correct address and issuance of notice, as the respondent had reportedly shifted residence. When the appeal was dismissed on Oct 26, 2022, it had not been fixed for hearing.

Justice Hassan observed that the high court order did not indicate that the appeal itself had been fixed for hearing.

While concluding, the SC observed that the high court order could not be sustained. Converting the civil petition into an appeal, the court set aside the Nov 3, 2025 high court order.

The SC directed that the case before the high court would be deemed pending and should be decided afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with the law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgement.

However, the SC also noted that the conduct of the petitioner was not entirely above board. Therefore, to balance the equities and reduce the hardship caused to the respondents, the petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs50,000 to the respondents before the high court on the first date of hearing. In case of failure to do so, the high court may pass an appropriate order, the SC added.

Published in Dawn, March 10th, 2026