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. 34 of 1972, decided on 3rd July 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, dated the 10th February 1971, in F. A. O. No. 177 of 1968).
Supreme Court Rules, 1956
O. XIII, r. 1‑Condonation of delay in filing petition for Special Leave to Appeal against judgment passed in second appeal‑Limitation in case of second appeal runs from date judgment in second appeal passed‑Time spent in obtaining certificate for appeal under Cl. 10, Letters Patent (Lahore) may, however, be condoned if petitioner found diligent throughout and in position to explain delay‑Delay not to be lightly excused in civil matters.
Paresh Chandra Biswas v. Tapen Kanti Choudhury P L D 1963 S C 598 and Kalachand Sikdar v: Fazlur Karim Mian 16 D L R 417 (S C) ref.
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 3rd July 1972.
This petition is barred by 248 days. In the application for condonation of delay, there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in the filing of the petition between the 31st of January 1972, when the copy of the order refusing the certificate under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent was received and the 24th of February 1972, when the petition was filed.
It is now well‑settled that the limitation begins to run from the date of tile judgment in second appeal, but the period spent in obtaining a certificate for appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent may be condoned if it is found that the petitioner has been diligent throughout and is in a position to explain the delay.
The delay is not to be lightly excused in civil matters, because by the lapse of time, valuable rights accrue to the other side and they cannot be taken away lightly. This has been repeatedly laid down by this Court in the cases of Paresh Chandra Biswas v. Tapen Kand Choudhury (PLD1963SC598) and Kalachand Sikdar v. Fazlur Karim Mian (16DLR417(SC)).
In the circumstances, we are unable to overlook the fact that the petitioner has made no attempt to explain why the delay of 24 days took place for filing the petition after receiving the certified copy of the order refusing the certificate. The explana tion of the learned counsel that most of the time was spent in preparing the case, is wholly unconvincing.
This petition is accordingly dismissed as being barred by time.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer