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. 165‑R of 1975, decided on 8th January 1976.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30‑5‑1975, in Writ Petition No. 78‑R of 1967).
------‑Art. 187 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑Condonation of delay‑Petitioner's allegation that he was all along unaware of pendency of writ petition filed against him not believable in circumstances of case‑Even otherwise copy of order being obtained by brim on 5‑11‑1975, petition filed on 15‑11‑1975, gap of 10 days not explained and likewise order in writ having come to his knowledge on 27‑10‑1975 and application for copy being filed on 5‑11‑1975 no explanation given for such gap of 8 days,‑Each day's delay, held, not explained‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed as time‑barred.
Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 8th January 1976.
The petitioner herein feels aggrieved by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated the 30th of May, 1975 by which he allowed the writ petition filed by Muhammad Ishaq respondent No. 1 and set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner cancelling the transfer order made in his favour on the basis of public auction of the disputed shop, he being the highest bidder.
The case of the petitioner is that on the cancellation of the shop from the name of respondent No. 1, it was transferred to Habib-‑Ullah respondent No. 3 and he (petitioner) stepped into his shoes on the basis of a deed of association. In the meantime, the order of cancellation made by the Settlement Commissioner against Muhammad Ishaq was challenged by him in writ jurisdiction. It was admittedly during the pendency of the writ that a P.T.O. was issued in favour of the present petitioner.
It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case as the petition is barred by 109 days of which no satisfactory explanation has been offered. The only ground taken by the petitioner for condonation of delay is that the restoration of the shop in favour of respondent No. 1 on the acceptance of his writ petition came to his knowledge for the first time on the 27th of October 1975, although the impugned order was passed on the 30th of May, 1975. He applied for obtaining a copy thereof on 5‑11‑1975 which was supplied to him the same day. The present petition was filed ten days later on 15th of November, 1975. In the first instance, it is difficult to believe that the petitioner all along remained unaware of the pendency of the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 but even so there is no satisfactory explanation of 8 days in applying for obtaining the copy as also of the further gap of ten days in the filing of the petition on the 15th of November. 1975 when the copy hail already been obtained on the 5th of November, 1975. The petitioner had to explain each day's delay but has failed to do so. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as barred by limitation.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer