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. 72 of 1976, decided on 16th July, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17‑7‑1975 in W. P. No. 629‑R/75).
-----S. 5‑Condonation of delay‑Attention of petitioner's counsel appearing before Appellate Bench of High Court drawn to question of competence of such appeal‑Original order manifestly appealable and appeals also preferred‑Condonation of delay sought on ground of petitioners having been diligently and in good faith prosecuting remedy by way of an intra‑court appeal, found to be incompetent Petitioners, held, did not bona fide or diligently pursue their remedy under a mistaken belief as to intra‑court appeal being competent and no satisfactory grounds exist to condone delay.
Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate with Mahmud A. Qureshi, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioners.
Ch. Muhammad Siddiq, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 16th July, 1980.
‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 17.7‑1980 whereby the Constitutional petition filed by them was dismissed.
2. Property No. 47 was transferred in earmarking to respondents 2 to S on 17‑12‑1959. . It was resumed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 27‑9‑1971. However, the resumption order was set aside by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 13‑10‑1971 and the property was restored to them. Meanwhile, the petitioners who were locals filed forms under Settle ment Scheme No. VIII for the transfer of the same. Their claim was rejected on 21‑12‑1971. on the ground that the resumption order had been set aside. They thereafter moved the Chief Settlement Commissioner with a grievance that more than one property was transferred to the respondents in the earmarking. This matter was got examined and the Settlement Commissioner on 11‑6‑1975 held that it was not a case of multiple transfer. The petitioners challenged the restoration and the transfer of the property to the respondents by a Constitutional petition which was dismissed on 17‑7‑1975. They filed an Intra‑Court Appeal which was held on 1‑12‑1975 to be incompetent.
3. It has been reported by the office that this petition is barred by 12 days. There is an application for the condonation of the delay and the reason given is that the petitioners had been diligently and in good faith prosecuting the remedy by way of an intra‑Court Appeal which was found to be incompetent.
4. It appears from the record that on 14‑10‑1975 the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing before the Appeal Bench in the High Court had been drawn to the question of the competence of such an appeal. The original orders which were challenged were manifestly such as were appealable and in fact appeals had been preferred.
5. In the circumstances, we are not satisfied about the petitioners having bona fide or diligently pursued their remedy under a mistaken belief that an Intra‑Court Appeal was competent. We do not find satisfactory grounds to condone the delay and dismiss this petition as time barred.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer