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 Review Petition No. 27 of 1972, decided on 29th May 1974.
(On review from the judgment and order of this Court dated 2‑10‑1972 in C. P. S. L. A. No. 76 of 1912).
(a) Supreme Court Rules, 1956‑
‑‑ O. XXVI, r. 5‑Review‑Limitation‑Notion that limitation begins to run from date of refusal of certificate under Cl. 10 of Letters Patent‑Entirely misconceived‑Limitation runs from date of judgment of Single Judge exclusive, however, of time spent in obtaining certificate under Cl. 10 of Letters Patent or on pursuit of proceedings under Cl. 10, if petitioner diligent throughout.
Paresh Chandra Biswas v. Tapen Kant Choudhury P L D 1963 S C 598 ref.
(b) Supreme Court Rules, 1956‑
‑‑ O. XXVI, r. 5‑Review‑Petition barred by limitation‑Not possible to go into merits of case.
Syed Sajjad Haider Madni, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record of Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 29th May 1974.
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑
This is a petition for the review of an order of this Court dismissing Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 76 of 1972 on the 2nd of October 1972, as being barred by time.
The said petition was filed on the 14th of December 1971, for leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated the 9th of December 1970. It was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. The ground on which condonation was sought was that the petitioner applied on the 6th of January 1971, for the grant of certificate of fitness for filing an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court and this application was ultimately dismissed on the 7th of May 1971, treating it as a review. He then made another application for a certificate for filing a Letters Patent appeal and this was dismissed on the 13th of September 1971. He then applied for a copy of the order refusing the certificate on the 14th of September 1971. He was not given any date for collecting the copy, and as such he took delivery of the copy on the basis of his own personal enquiry on the 20th of October 1971. When delivery was taken, it was found that the copy had been made ready for delivery on the 12th of October 1971.
Even so, no explanation was given in the petition for condonation as to what the petitioner was doing from the 20th of October 1971, to the 13th of December 1971. In this view of the matter, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioner had not shown that he was throughout diligent, nor had he explained each day's delay. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
He now seeks to have this order reviewed, firstly, on the ground that from the date he took delivery of the copy, the petition for special leave to appeal was filed within time. This is on the supposition that limitation began to run from the date of refusal of the certificate under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. This is an entirely misconceived notion. It is now well settled that limitation begins to run from the date of the judgment of a learned single Judge, but the time spent in obtaining a certificate under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent or pursuing a proceeding under Clause of the Letters Patent may be condoned, if the petitioner has satisfied this Court that he had been diligent throughout. If authority is needed for this proposition, reference may be made to the case of Paresh Chandra Biswas v. Tapen Kanti Choudhury (P L D 1963 S C 598). This is no ground, therefore, for review.
The next ground on which the review was sought pertains to the merit of the petition. It is not possible to go into the merits of the petition until the petitioner can get over the hurdle of limitation. Since we are of the e view that on this question of limitation no valid ground for the review of our previous order has been made out, the petitioner cannot be allowed to go into the merits of his case.
This petition for review is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer