17/07/2026
Responsibilities of Public Authorities in contesting court matters.
-------------------------
The Public authorities are obligated to contest the Court cases vigilantly with due diligence. Failure to do so amounts to the breach of their duty. In the case at hand, serious lapses, negligence and reckless conduct is apparent from the record. Despite various opportunities and change of counsel, CDA failed to actively defend the civil suit in question. In spite of availing various opportunities, neither any written statement was filed nor even after declaring ex-parte did the counsel appear to avail the opportunity of cross examination to the plaintiff, heedless demeanour which debilitated their case and endorsed the case of plaintiff. Engaging counsel does not absolve or exonerate a party leaving the case at the mercy of counsel, rather the negligence or laxity of a lawyer is by and large considered the negligence of the client seemingly as the principal and agent. In the scarcities of the sense of responsibility of counsel who disappear from Court despite engagement by his client, the court has no control over but as a consequence of such callous conduct, it is the client who suffers the adverse repercussions and not the opposing party. Every litigant should have a sense of duty to follow up his case with due attentiveness. On passing ex- parte decree, a valuable right accrues in favour of the successful party and ex parte decree cannot be recalled unless the defendant proves sufficient cause which should not be simply based on irresponsible conduct of counsel. If the counsel negligence is treated so sacrosanct, this will become a much loved and most favourable elected device of a litigant to intentionally delay the proceedings and after declaring ex-parte in every case, adopt this strategy and shift the entire burden on the shoulders of counsel, exonerating himself from the responsibility of seriously pursuing the Court case to safeguard his interest. A party cannot relegate whole accountability on his lawyer or the court but it is supposed to make inquiries for regular update in the progress of the lawsuit. However in the interest of justice, the Courts may intervene if the absence of counsel was due to circumstances beyond the control, such as the death or incapacitation of the lawyer or owing to some other force majeure circumstances, which can be distinguished from species of ordinary or gross negligence.
C.P.L.A.2284/2025
Capital Development Authority (CDA), through Chairman, Islamabad and others v. Dr. Sheikh Muhammad Shoaib Shafi and another
2026 SCMR 1033
