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. 161‑R of 1975, decided on 7th January 1976.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court made on 2‑6‑1975 in W. P. No. 376‑8 of 1971).
--‑‑Art. 187 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑Delay, condonation of‑Petitioner even o6 his own narration of facts bearing on his illness not unable to give instructions for filing of petition in time‑Each day's delay beyond prescribed period also not explained Petition dismissed as barred by time.
M. S. Mahboob, Advocate and Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 7th January 1976.
This petition is barred by 82 days.
In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that in the first instance there was some confusion as to the date on which the High Court judgment was delivered, namely, whether it was 2‑5‑1975 or 2‑6‑1975. Even when it became clear that the judgment of the High Court was dated the 2nd of June 1975, the petitioner was unable to engage an Advocate‑on- Record for the purpose of filing this petition, as in the meantime he had fallen ill with a heart ailment. He instructed his son to do the needful, but was informed that the matter had already become time‑barred. The petitioner accordingly gave up the matter, but in the third week of September 1975, he found that the matter was not barred by time as the judgment of the High Court was dated 2‑6‑75 and not 2‑5‑75. It is submitted that the delay wars thus caused by the confusion as to the date of the Judgment and the indisposition of the petitioner. In support of this last ground a medical certificate has also been appended with the application showing that the petitioner received medical treatment from 5‑7‑75 to 20‑9‑75. The petition was tiled ors the 29th of September 1975.
We regret we are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner. Each day of the delay beyond the prescribed period bas to be explained, but this has not been done. From the narration of facts bearing on the petitioner's illness, it becomes clear that be was not unable to give instructions for the filing of the present petition in time. We would accordingly dismiss this petition as barred by 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