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. 327 of 1974, decided 20th February 1975.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated the 7th December 1973, in Writ Petition No, 625‑R‑73),
S. 5‑Limitation‑Delay in filing petition based on excuses that petitioner laboured under impression that time for obtaining copy of order had to be allowed Advocate on‑Record, however Imme diately on presentation of petition informed by Registry of Court with regard to its being barred by brae‑Explanation of petitioner being under misconception, in circumstances held, not acceptable.
---S 5 Valuable right accrues to other side by lapse of time Each days delay to be satisfactorily explained as of necessity.
A. W. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner":
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 20th February 1975.
‑This petition is barred by l1 days. When it first came up for hearing on the 30th of December 1914, time was granted, at the request of the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, for filing an application for the condonation of the delay. That applications was filed only or the 18th of February 1975. Now the excuse put forward in the application is that the petitioner was labouring under the impression that since the time for obtaining the copy was to be allowed, the application was in time.
In this case the impugned order of the High Court was made on the 7th of December 1973. Copy of the order was applied for on the 17th of January 1974. It was made ready on the 26th of March 1974 but the petition was filed only on the 26th of April 1974. There is no explanation for the delay between the 26th of March 1974, and the 26th of April 1970.
It further appears that immediately the petition was brought to the Registry of this Court, the learned Advocate‑on‑Record was informed that it was barred by time. The explanation that tire petitioner was under some misconception cannot, therefore, be accepted.
In civil matters a valuable right accrues to the other side by lapse of time and it is necessary that each day's delay should be satisfactorily explained. This the petitioner has clearly failed to do in the present case. This petition is accordingly dismissed as being barred try 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