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.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 429 of 1968, decided on 8th April 1969.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 6th April 1967, in Civil Revision No. 553 of 1966).
Supreme Court Rules, 1956, Q. XIII, r. 1‑Delay in filing petition‑Civil matter‑Valuable right accrues to other side by lapse of time‑Litigant expected to be in constant touch with progress of case‑Hence mere fact that counsel did not inform petitioner in time about dismissal of his revision by High Court Not sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Ghulam Qadir Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Merajuddin Choudlrury, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 8th April 1969.
This petition is barred by 533 days as the Revision petition in the High Court was dismissed on the 6th April 1967, and this petition was filed only on the 19th November 1968. The only explanation given for this inordinate delay in the condonation petition is that the counsel engaged by the petitionerin the High Court failed to inform the petitioner about the dismissal of his revision petition. Hence he only came to know of it when a summons was pasted at his dwelling house oil the 8th of October 1968. This presumably was notice from, the executing Court, for this was followed on the 22nd November 1968 by another summons to the same effect. We are unable to accept this explanation as sufficient for excusing this inordinate delay as in a civil matter a valuable right accrues to other side by the lapse of time. It is the duty of the litigant to keep in touch with the progress of his litigation. is duty does not merely by the engagement of a counsel to represent his case in the Court. There is nothing in the petition A for condonation of delay to show that the petitioner ever Contacted his counsel to find out how his case was progressing. In the circumstances this is a clear case in which the petitioner. Had been grossly negligent.We see no justification at all for excusing this delay. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as being barred by time.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer