A two-member Supreme Court bench held on 6 August 2026 that a party's right to lead evidence cannot be struck off under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the failure to appear stems from circumstances beyond the party's control: including a lawyers' strike, a public holiday, a judge's leave, or the transfer of a court.

The bench, comprising Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, described the provision as penal in nature and ruled that it must be construed strictly. It can be invoked only when every condition prescribed by law is satisfied.

The judgment arose from a pre-emption suit over 12 kanals of land that had been pending for 17 years. The trial court had struck off the plaintiffs' right to lead evidence on 14 October 2009 and dismissed the suit, even though the previous hearing had been adjourned because of a lawyers' strike: not because of any request or negligence by the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court found that the basic legal condition for invoking Order XVII Rule 3 was absent.

The court set aside the judgments of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, the appellate court, and the trial court, and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. It directed the trial court to decide the case within six months, conducting day-to-day hearings if necessary.

Review petitions remain open even where an appeal lies

The Supreme Court further held that although an appeal was available against the trial court's order, a review petition was also maintainable because the trial court had exercised a jurisdiction it did not possess in law. A review petition, the court said, cannot be dismissed on a merely technical ground in such circumstances.

No more 'last opportunity' orders

The judgment directed trial courts to stop issuing orders described as "last opportunity", "final opportunity", or "last and final opportunity". The court observed that repeatedly issuing such orders undermines the significance of judicial orders.

Adjournments: record reasons and impose costs

Where granting a further adjournment is unavoidable, the court directed that trial courts must:

  • Record the reasons for the adjournment in writing
  • Impose effective costs to discourage unnecessary delay

The judgment also addressed the professional responsibilities of lawyers. It observed that advocates should accept only as many briefs as they can handle in a timely and responsible manner, and that engagement in another court does not invariably constitute a reasonable ground for seeking an adjournment.

Nationwide circulation ordered

The Supreme Court directed the Registrar's Office to circulate copies of the judgment to the Chief Justices of all High Courts, the provincial bar councils, and the Islamabad Bar Council. The court stated that the directions on case management, professional responsibility of lawyers, and improvement of the civil justice system are of significance for the judicial system throughout the country.

The judgment takes effect immediately. Trial courts are expected to apply the ruling to all pending proceedings where a party's right to lead evidence is at issue, and to align their adjournment practices with the directives set out in the judgment.

What the judgment does not specify is the exact citation number, nor does it prescribe a fixed scale of costs for unjustified adjournments: leaving the quantum to the discretion of individual trial courts.