Find a Lawyer

Art. 186(3)‑Petition for special leave to appeal‑Limitation‑Exclusion of time spent in obtaining copy‑Time taken in obtaining certified copy of original order of High Court and that taken in disposal of application for grant of certificate of fitness for appeal under cl. 10 of Letters Patent‑Can be excluded in computation of limitation period‑‑Time taken after refusal of certificate.‑Cannot, however, be allowed Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 12.

While the time taken by the petitioner in obtaining a certified copy of the original order of the High Court and the time taken in the disposal of the petitioner's application for the grant of a certificate under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, can be excluded, yet the time taken after the refusal of the certificate cannot be allowed to the petitioner.

Art. 186(3)‑Petition for special leave to appeal ‑Exclusion of time spent in obtaining copy‑--Petition to be instituted immediately on refusal of certificate under cl. 10 of Letters Patent‑High Court's order refusing to grant such certificate‑Not subject‑matter of petition for special leave to appeal‑Time consumed after refusal of certificate by High Court Cannot be allowed unless sufficient cause shown‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 12.

Yaqub Hussain Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 22nd May 1973.

This petition for special leave to appeal is barred by 377 days. The order under appeal was passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 6‑7‑1971, and the present petition was filed on the 15th of September 1972.

In explanation of the delay, it is stated that an application for the copy of the judgment was made on the same day, i.e., the 6th of July 1971, and the copy was supplied on the 26th of January 1972. Thereafter, on the 1st of February 1972, an application was made to the learned Judge for the grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The certificate was refused on the 5th of June 197 2. Thereafter, an application was made for obtaining a copy of the order of the High Court refusing the necessary certificate under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. This copy was supplied to the petitioner on 7‑9‑72, and the petition was filed within 8 days therefrom.

While the time taken by the petitioner in obtaining a certified copy of the original order of the High Court dated the 6th of July 1971, and the time taken in the disposal of the petitioner's application for the grant of a certificate under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, can be excluded, yet the time taken after the refusal of the certificate cannot be allowed to the petitioner. The petition being directed against the original order of the High Court dated the 6th of July 1971, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to institute the present petition immediately after the High Court had refused to grant a certificate under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Instead of doing so, the petitioner wasted time in obtaining a copy of the order of the B High Court dated the 5th of June 1972, an order which is not the subject‑matter of the present petition. This Court has con sistently taken the view that the time consumed after the refused of the certificate by the High Court cannot be allowed unless sufficient cause is shown for the same. In the present case, sufficient cause does not exist for the time taken by the petitioner from 5‑6‑72 to 15‑9‑72. We would accordingly dismiss this petition as being barred by time.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.