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. 555 of 1977, decided on 13th September, 1980.
(On appeal from judgment dated 17-3-1977 of the Lahore High Court in L. F. w. No. 50 of 1967).
----S. 5-Condonation of delay-Letters Patent Appeal filed by peti tioners dismissed by High Court as time-barred-Writ petition formerly dismissed in presence of counsel for writ petitioner-Failure to convey dismissal .of writ petition by counsel to his client or his clerk's conveying wrong information, held, no sufficient grounds for condoning delay-Refusal to condone delay in discre tionary exercise of jurisdiction by High Court unexceptionable.
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 13th September, 1980.
-Judgment dated 17-3-1977 of the Lahore High Court whereby a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed as time barred, has been brought under challenge; through this petition.
A writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in limine on 19-7-1965, in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners. A belated Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 9-1-1967. In the application for condonation of delay, it was everred from the petitioners side that the clerk of the learned counsel who had appeared in the High Court, had wrongly informed his clients that the writ petition had been admitted to hearing. Not only this, he lad also recovered certain amount from them with regard to the further processing of the case. It was on account of this wrong information. it was further asserted, that the delay took place in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. A learned Division Bench of the High Court, after taking note of this, explanation, observed: There is no supporting affidavit of the clerk of the counsel explaining any mis apprehension on the part of the clerk concerned about the order passed and communication made to the appellant. We find that the explanation to offered by the appellant is of no avail and there is no question of condoning the delay in his favour on the grounds stated".
Learned counsel admits that the information said to have been conveyed to the writ petitioner by the clerk (to say the least) was wrong. He has further stated that the clerk has since died. It appears from the grounds of the petition that the clerk was alive when the Letters Patent Appeal was filed. One reason for not filing his affidavit with the application for condonation of delay could be that he might not have owned the false statement alleged to have been made by him to the petitioner. So that as it may, the fact remains that the writ petition was dismissed in presence of the learn counsel for the writ petitioner. If he himself failed to convey correct information to his client, or for that matter his check conveyed fats information that by itself, in the circumstances of the case, was not sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The refuse to condone delay in the, discretionary exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court is unexceptionable. No justification has been made out for interference. The petition is 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