KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Wednesday observed that a litigant was under an obligation to pursue proceedings with due diligence and seriousness after invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the high court.
It also noted that the judicialprocess cannot be allowed to remain at the disposal of a litigant who has shown no inclination to pursue the relief sought in the petition after institutingsuchproceedings.
A two-judge constitutional bench of the SHC headed by Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar further said: ‘The precious time of the court is meant to be utilised for the adjudication of genuine disputes and cannot be consumed by keeping matters pending indefinitely on account of the indifference or inaction of the parties concerned.
The bench made these observations afterdismissing a petition filed in 2023 against illegal construction over non-prosecution as the petitioner had neither taken any effective steps for fixation of the matter nor turned up during various hearings.
Syed Fazil Shah Kazmi had petitioned the SHC and argued that he was a retired director general public relations of Sindh and resident of the locality of Scheme No.5, Kehkashan Clifton.
He asserted that illegal and unauthorised construction was being carried out at a multistorey building being erected in his neighbourhood, which was purely a residential area. He also impugned the conversion of the plot from residential to commercial as well as the approvals given by the relevant authoritiesforsuchconstruction.
The bench in its order noted that the petition was filed on July 10, 2023 and taken up for hearing on Oct 4, in the same year when the counsel for the petitioner sought time for placing on record some documents.
It also observed that the matter was again fixed for hearing in November 2023, but the petition was discharged and again it could not be heard in April this year when the matter was fixed for hearing after around two years and five months.
The benchfurther said that the petitioner had neither moved any application seekingurgent hearing nor taken any effective steps for fixation of the matter and even he or his lawyer did not appear before the court on Wednesday despite repeated calls.
‘It is an established principle that a litigant who invokes constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is under an obligation to pursue the proceedings with due diligence and seriousness. The judicial process cannot be allowed to remain at the disposal of a litigant who, after instituting proceedings, shows no inclination to pursue the relief sought,’ it added.
It also said the conduct of the petitioner, as reflected from the record, demonstrates a persistent lack of diligence in prosecuting the instant proceedings and neither has any plausible explanation been furnished for the prolonged inaction nor is there any representation on behalf of the petitioner even today (Wednesday).
‘Such circumstances give rise to a reasonable inference that either the grievance which led to the filing of the instant petition no longer survives or the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the relief sought. In these circumstances, this court is not inclined to keep the instant proceedings pending indefinitely. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, along with all pending applications’, it concluded.