Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 130‑R of 1975, decided on 7th January 1976.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court. Quetta Circuit, Quetta, dated 18‑6‑1975, in Constitutional Petition No. 58 of 1971).

‑‑ Art. 187 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑Condonation of. delay‑Nature of ailment of petitioner not such as to render him completely helpless to establish contact with his counsel Other co‑petitioners also having their interests equally at stake Delay in filing petition, held, not satisfactorily explained‑Condonation of delay declined.

Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing.: 7th January 1976.

This petition for special leave to appeal arising out of partition proceedings of Shamilat land and initiated as far as the 3rd of November, 1957, is barred by 24 days. The partition was finalized by the Extra‑Assistant Commissioner on 20‑5‑1964 after disposing of tie objections whose order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Collector and the Commissioner, who respectively dismissed the appeal and revision, vide order dated 20‑3‑1967 and 1‑5‑1969. The Member, Board of Revenue, however, allowed a revision petition by means of a short order dated 24‑11‑1970, which he declined to review. The revisional order was, however, set aside by a D. B. of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court which accepted the Constitutional petition filed by respondents 1 to 3. It is from this order that leave to appeal is sought by the petitioners.

Last date for filing the petition was 17‑8‑1975 plus the time taken in obtaining the copy thereof. The petition was actually filed on 17‑9‑1975.

A perusal of the record shows that application for obtaining a copy of the order was made on 26‑6‑1975 which was ready for delivery on 2‑7‑1975. Delivery was actually obtained on 14‑7‑1975. Condonation of delay has been sought on ground of illness of the petitioner No. 1 from 15‑7‑1975 to 10‑9‑1975, which is supported by a medical certificate.

Having perused the certificate as also having heard the learned counsel, we are not satisfied that the nature of ailment was such as to render petitioner No. 1 completely helpless to establish contact with his counsel particularly when two other co-Petitioners had also their interests equally at stake with him. Thus in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of the delay, we decline to condone the same and dismiss the petition as, barred by limitation.

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.