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. K‑118 of 1969, decided on 29th January 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 12th August 1969, in L. P. A. No. 59 of.1966).
..S. 5‑Appeal‑Condonation of delay‑‑Errors pointed out in memorandum of appeal not corrected within prescribed time‑Appellant acting negligently; not with due care and caution in prosecution of his case and fling appeal much after expiry of prescribed period‑High Court's discretion, in refusing to condone delay having been properly exercised‑Not interfered with‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Khalilullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Anwar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 29th January 1970.
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi; by which the petitioner's Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as barred by time:
The judgment of the learned Single Judge which was impugned in the Letters Patent Appeal, was made on the 30th of September 1965, in a Settlement Writ under Article 98 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962. Instead of filing the appeal in the High Court, the petitioner lodged a petition for special leave to appeal in this Court on the 19th of November 1965. This was returned to him by the Registry on the 15th of December 1965, with the note that it should be presented to the proper Court (i. e. the High Court) in which the Letters Patent Appeal was competent as per decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1965 (Mumtaz Khan v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner) dated the 29th of October 1965.
Without bothering to draft a proper appeal addressed to the High Court, the petitioner lodged the very same petition, without any amendment, in the High Court on the very date, viz. 15th December 1965. The High Court Registry. pointed out the error and allowed seven days for representation of the appeal after necessary corrections. No one turned up on behalf of the petitioner to collect the papers from the High Court till the 3rd of January 1966. The appeal was then filed in the High Court on the 10th of January 1966.
Even if on a liberal view, the time spent in prosecuting the appeal in. a wrong forum is to be excluded because of the doubt) regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the Letters Patent Appeal, there is no satisfactory explanation why a proper appeal was not presented in the High Court within time after the petition was returned by the Registry of the Supreme Court. It seems that the whole affair was being treated lightly. Even after the petitioner was informed on the 15th of December 1965, that his appeal as in the High Court was not properly constituted and that he should represent it within seven days, no one cared to pay any heed to that note and the papers were not taken back till the 3rd of January 1966.
The circumstances depicted above clearly disclose a case of gross negligence, lack of due care and caution in the prosecution of judicial proceedings. The High Court in its discretion ha refused to condone the delay and we find no justification to interfere with that discretion which has been properly exercised.
The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer