ISLAMABAD: Emphasising the importance of diligent case presentation, the Supreme Court on Saturday reiterated that an advocate’s vigilance was essential to protecting a client’s case from dismissal for non-prosecution.
The principle is reflected in the Latin legal maxim ‘Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt’, which means the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights, observed Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar in an eight-page judgement issued on Saturday.The court restored two civil revision petitions that had been dismissed for non-prosecution after the petitioner’s counsel was unable to appear due to a coronavirus infection.
A three-member Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, allowed the civil petitions by converting them into appeals and set aside the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) decision rejecting the restoration applications.
In September last year, the Supreme Court had also regretted that litigants and their counsel sometimes treated the court’s benevolence and leniency as mere procedural formalities, disregarding the seriousness of its categorical directives. The observation came while dismissing three civil miscellaneous applications seeking restoration of review petitions.
The present matter arose when petitioner Safdar Ali Butt approached the LHC. However, on Feb 2, 2026, both civil revisions were dismissed for non-prosecution after his counsel, Shahid Azeem Bajwa, failed to appear before the bench due to a coronavirus infection.
Although the petitioner demonstrated diligence by filing restoration applications the following day, February 3, 2026, the high court dismissed them, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
At the same time, Justice Mazhar emphasised that clients must also remain vigilant and pursue their cases diligently rather than leaving everything to their lawyers. They should not turn a blind eye to proceedings or adopt a passive approach on account of their counsel’s inattention or negligence.
To ensure compliance with professional ethics and avoid allegations of misconduct or violations of professional standards, lawyers should properly track hearing dates, cause lists and court benches to prevent cases from being missed due to human error. They should also make every possible effort to addressallaspectsofacasetosafeguardtheir clients’ interests.
Lawyers should keep their clients informed about the progress of cases, potential risks and any settlement offers, while also avoiding conflicts of interest, Justice Mazhar observed.
In cases involving overlapping commitments in different courts, advocates should arrange for another lawyer to hold their brief, even when seeking an adjournment, or submit a formal adjournment application in advance after informing opposing counsel, as required by professional ethics.
The judgement noted that courts sometimes dismiss cases when parties and their counsel repeatedly and deliberately fail to pursue proceedings or produce evidence despite being given several opportunities. Such conduct may stem from a lack of interest or an attempt to delay proceedings and avoid an early decision on merit.
Justice Mazhar maintained that courts could not ignore the well-established principle governing restoration of cases, which empowers them to revive proceedings dismissed for nonprosecution when sufficient cause is established and the interests of justice so demand.
Where a restoration application is promptly filed within the prescribed limitation period and the absence on the hearing date is satisfactorily explained, courts generally lean towards a compassionate approach, he said.
‘The rules of procedure are meant to serve justice and not obstruct it,’ the judgement concluded.