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. 48 of 1970, decided on 10th April 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 30th January 1970, in S. A. O. No. 356 of 1969).
-------S. 5‑Delay, condonation of Fact that valuable rights of petitioner are involved in case‑Does not furnish proper ground for condonation of delay.
-----S. 5‑Delay, condonation of View that ignorance of law may in circumstances of particular case furnish sufficient ground for condonation of delay‑Correct only when no negligence, inaction or want of good faith‑Wrong advice of lawyer‑May constitute sufficient cause in a given case‑Litigant having no knowledge of limitation law, taking upon himself to determine time for filing suit etc.‑Does not act in good faith or with due diligence‑Condonation of delay, held, rightly refused.
Abdur Rehman v. Custodian, Evacuee Property and others P L D 1968 Lah. 1106 ref.
Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 10th April 1970.
‑S. A. O. 356 of 1969 preferred by the petitioner in the High Court was barred by time. The explanation rendered was ignorance of the law of limitation which in the opinion of the learned Judge did not constitute a sufficient cause within section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was, in this view, dismissed as barred by time.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal on the same ground which did not find favour with the High Court. It was urged that valuable rights of the petitioner are involved, but this does not furnish a proper ground for condonation of delay in a civil matter. Reliance was placed on the view expressed by the High Court in Abdur Rehman v. Custodian, Evacuee Property and others (P L D 1968 Lah. 1106) that "ignorance of law accompanied by circumstances not indicating want of good faith or negligence may in circum stances of particular case furnish sufficient ground within meaning of section 5, Limitation Act, 1908" but is correct only to the extent that there is no negligence, no inaction and no want of good faith. A wrong advice given by a lawyer may, therefore, in a given case constitute sufficient cause, but a litigant who has no knowledge of the law of limitation does not act in good faith or with due diligence if he takes it upon himself to determine the time for filing a suit, an appear or application in disregard of the time prescribed by law. The S. A. O. was, therefore, rightly dismissed as barred by time by the High Court.
Leave to appeal is refused.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer