Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 83‑D of 1968, decided on 21st August 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 27th February 1968, in Petition No. 227 of 1966).
Art. 58 (3) read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII, r. 1‑Petition barred by 49 days Contention that copying agency had furnished wrong information about preparation of certified copy‑No affidavit filed in support of plea‑Contention not relied upon‑Explanation that further time was taken in preparation of case‑Not considered satisfactory either.
Israrul Hossain, Advocate‑General East Pakistan (Siddique Ahmed Chowdhaury, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Wadud Mia, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 21st August 1968.
‑‑This petition is barred by time by 49 days.
In the petition for condonation of the delay it is stated :‑
"that although the certified copy was made ready for delivery on 4th April 1968, it was not delivered to your petitioner before 30th May 1968, in spite of the fact that your petitioner made an enquiry from the copying department before and after 4th April 1968, as to the question whether the certified copy was ready for delivery but your petitioner was told by the copying department that it was not ready for delivery, and only on 30th May 1968, it was given to your petitioner."
It, however, does not disclose the name of the person, who, on behalf of the petitioner Province of East Pakistan, made enquiries after 4th April, and was given wrong information by the copying department.
If the above fact was true the person who made such inquiries should have filed an affidavit in support of the above statement. We also find no reason whatsoever why the copying department should have given incorrect information to the agent of the petitioner.
It may also be pointed out that though the certified copy was obtained on 30‑5‑1968 this petition was not filed before 29‑6‑1968. Explanation that the time from 30‑5‑1968 to 29‑6‑1968 was required for the preparation of the case is also not considered satisfactory.
This petition is, therefore, dismissed as time‑barred.
Petition dismissed as barred by time.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer