Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XLI, 9, 19

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 5

(a) Counsel and client Parties and their counsel must act vigilantly in prosecuting their causes and if there is contumacy on their part, the other party should not suffer for that. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XLI, R.19---Expression "sufficient cause"---Scope---"Sufficient cause" is not susceptible of an exact definition and no hard and fast rule can be laid down to cover all possible cases---Such question depends on facts and circumstances of each case and the same lies within discretion of the Court-- For "sufficient cause" very strict view should not be taken and the discretion of the Court is to be exercised on judicial principles. Muhammad Halim and others v. H.H. Muhammad Naim and others PLD 1969 SC 270, . Mariam Bai and another v. Mst. Mehrun Nisa Begum 1985 SCMR 2064 and Mst. Begum v. Mst. Begum Kaniz Fatima Hayat 1989 SCMR 883 ref. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) S. 5---Expression "sufficient cause"---Scope---Expression should receive a liberal construction so as to advance cause of substantial justice and to include grounds of justice; equity and good conscience. Muhammad Nazir v. The Secretary, Cooperative Department 1989 MLD 1156 and 1994 MLD 1965 ref. (d) Interpretation of statutes Expression "sufficient cause" in a provision of law has to receive a liberal construction so as to advance cause of substantial justice and to include grounds of justice, equity and good conscience. Muhammad Nazir v. The Secretary, Cooperative Department 1989 MLD 1156 and 1994 MLD 1965 ref. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XLI, R.19---Appeal, readmission of---Appeal was dismissed for non prosecution and ground for non-appearance of the appellant was failure to receive notice of hearing of appeal---Validity---Law favours adjudication on merits and cases should be decided on merits by affording ample and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties so that substantial justice can be done and no party should be deprived of his right---Appeal was ordered to be re-admitted accordingly. 1974 SCMR 162; 1985 MLD 1616; PLD 1991 SC 1082; PLD 1992 Lah. 156; 1984 CLC 3332; 1996 SCMR 1508; 1992 MLD 967; 1986 CLC…