Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

versus


Article 58 (3) and Rules of the Supreme Court, 1956, AXXIV, r 2 Appeal for special leave, in criminal case, is restricted to 29 days ground for the condolence that the applicant is a heart patient and he The doctor advised rest, not the nature of the illness, to indicate that the applicant's lawyer was unable to provide the delayed guidance.

1968 S C M R 1335 (2)

Present : Fazle‑Akbar and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ

REHMAT ELAHI‑Petitioner

versus

THE STATE‑Respondent

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 64 of 1968, decided on 30th May 1968.

(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 8th December 1967, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5595 of 1967).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962)----

-----

Art. 58(3) and Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXIV, r. 2‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, in criminal matter, barred by 29 days‑Ground for condonation that petitioner was heart patient and was advised rest by doctor‑Nature of ailment not showing that petitioner was incapable of giving instruction to attorney‑‑Delay not condoned.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

--- S. 526‑Transfer of criminal cases‑Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere with orders of High Court.

Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 30th May 1968.

JUDGMENT

FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.

‑This petition for special leave to appeal is against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court refusing to transfer a case from Karachi to Lahore.

This petition is barred by time by 29 days.

In the petition for condonation of the delay, it is stated that the petitioner being a heart patient was advised by his Doctors to take complete rest and hence was unable to file the petition in time. Nature of his ailment does not show that he was incapable of giving instruction to his attorney to take necessary steps in the matter. His explanations for the delay is, therefore, not considered at all satisfactory.

Even on merits, we do not find any substance in this petition. It will suffice to say that in a case of this nature, this Court ordinarily does not interfere with the order of the High Court.

This petition is, however, dismissed as time‑barred.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Naudero lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.