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. 329 of 1967, decided on 10th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 15th February 1967, in Writ Petition No. 282 of 1965).
, O. XIII, r. 1‑Limitation‑Delay in filing petition‑ Explanation that petitioner thought he could file petition on re‑opening of Court after summer vacation‑Not reasonable‑Delay not condoned.
Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Amjad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Inayat Hussain, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 10th October 1967.
.‑This petition is clearly barred by time, and appears also not to be competent. It seeks special leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition before the High Court, for default of appearance. The learned Judges added a short paragraph to the effect that the writ petition was devoid of merit.
This was on the 15th February 1967. It is explained that the counsel whom the petitioner had engaged to conduct the case had been debarred from practicing in the High Court, of which he had been a Judge earlier. It is said that no intimation of this disability was sent to the petitioner by the counsel, but it is important to note that no information was sought on the point from the counsel himself.
However, that may be, the petitioner admitted having received an intimation on the 8th June 1967, from the Deputy Registrar of the High Court of the dismissal of his writ petition. He made application for a copy of the order on the 10th June 1967, and the copy was ready on the 14th June 1967. He did not take delivery of it until the 11th July 1967. No explanation is, available for this delay of 27 days. The petition was filed in this Court on the 21st August 1967, which was 8 days out of time, making all available allowances as from the 8th June 1967.
It is sought to bring it within time on the argument that the petitioner thought he could file the petition on the day the Court opened after the summer vacation. This is hardly to be accepted for he actually filed it during the summer vacation through an Attorney, who is undoubtedly familiar with the fact that petitions and other proceedings are received by the Curt office during vacation time, on all working days except Saturdays.
No reasonable explanation being offered for the delay, we dismiss this petition as 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