Bona fide counsel absence constitutes sufficient cause to restore a dismissed writ petition, subject to costs.

The applicant sought restoration of WPS No. 6234 of 2026, which had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 19 August 2026.

His counsel explained that she could not appear when the matter was called because she was engaged before another court.

The applicant maintained that the absence was unintentional and that he had continued to pursue the writ petition.

Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause to restore WPS No. 6234 of 2026, dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Court applied the principle that a proceeding dismissed for want of prosecution may be restored where sufficient cause for the non-appearance is established.

It treated bona fide and inadvertent absence, supported by the explanation provided, as sufficient cause.

The order does not cite a statute or precedent.

The Court considered counsel’s explanation that she was engaged in another matter when the writ petition was called, along with the applicant’s assertion that he had diligently pursued the case and did not intend to abandon it.

It found the absence bona fide and inadvertent and held that sufficient cause had been shown for restoration.

Upon payment, the dismissal order dated 19 August 2026 would stand recalled and WPS No. 6234 of 2026 would be restored to its original number.