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

AHMAD DIN versus RASUL BIBI


Article 58 (3) read with the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O 12th r 1 The request for appeal to the Supreme Court has been delayed by the sixty-day deadline, explaining the delay of each day. The Certificate (which was denied) for a Letter Patent Appeal in the High Court is admissible, clarification, but not that the High Court was merely incurred in reviewing the delay in its final order. , In addition to an attempt to revise, anonymous documents were excluded, prohibiting them. Over time (Zafarullah Khan Vs. Mist, Hussein BBPLD 1968 SC 61 ref]

P L D 1968 Supreme Court 213

Present: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub All, J

AHMAD DIN‑Petitioner

versus

Mst. RASUL BIBI‑Respondent

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 468 of 1967; decided on 23rd February 1968.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 16th May 1967, and 21st July 1967, in R. S. A. No. 96 of 1961, and order dated the 17th October 1967, in R. S. A. No. 59 of 1967). .

Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3) read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII r. 1‑Petition for leave to appeal to .Supreme Court‑.Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay. Sixty day's limitation already expired‑Every a day's delay must be explained Time spent in attempting to procure certificate (which was refused) .for Letters Patent Appeal in High Court, acceptable. ,explanation, but not that spent in getting High Court to Preview its final order‑‑Delay, apart from that caused by attempting a review, also remaining unexplained ‑‑ Petition dismissed as barred by time‑(Zafarullah Khan v, Mst, Hussain Bibi P L D 1968 S C 61 ref.].

Sher Alan Mian, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 23rd February 1968.

JUDGMENT

CORNELIUS, C. J.‑‑

This petition is barred by time. It seeks leave to appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dated the 16th May 1967. Two delays occurred thereafter. The first, which ended on the 21st July 1967, was necessary, for the petitioner had to attempt a Letters patent appeal in the High Court before he could come to this Court. The necessary certificate for such an appeal was refused. But the second delay, which ended on the 17th October 1967, was of the petitioner's own making, for he attempted a review of the order of the 21st July 1967, which was unsuccessful. It was "only after this that he applied for copies of the relevant orders, which were available on the 21st November 1967. Even after that 17 days were allowed to elapse before the petition was filed in this Court.

Limitation for filing an appeal against a final order of the High Court in a civil matter is 60 days, which in this case commenced to run from the 16th May 1967. Allowing the period spent before a certificate for a Letters Patent appeal was refused on the 21st July 1967, it was the duty of the petitioner to approach this Court with the minimum of delay, as the 60 days of limitation had already expired. He chose to delay the matte over an optional review, application till the 17th October 1967, when he was still further out of time. Five days were allowed to go by before application was made for copies of the High Court orders, and when these were available, another 17 days q were wasted, before he moved the present petition.

In the circumstances of this case, when time has already expired counted from the day of the order sought, to be appealed from, it is the duty of the petitioner to explain every day's delay, if he seeks condonation, vide, Zafarullah Khan v. Mst. Hussain Bibi (PLD 1968SC61). No acceptable explanation is offered for the delay after the 21st July 1967. In the meantime by lapse of limitation, valuable rights in property have been assured in favour of the opposite‑party.

We refuse to condone the delay, and dismiss this petition as barred by time.

A. H. Petition dismissed.

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
how to become a advocate from Lakimarwat 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.