Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

EJAZ AKHTAR versus STATE


Article 2 (3 ()) claims that the applicant is suffering from eye problems and cannot secure a certified copy of the unknown order over time, so the delay in filing an appeal leave can be condoned. Is, suffering from the side of the eye, hardly any reason for any delay, the month of filing an application [delay]

1982 S C M R 885

Present : Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. Burhanuddin Khan, JJ

EJAZ AKHTAR‑Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE‑Respondent

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 79/R of 1981, decided on 3rd March, 1982.

(Against the judgment and order dated 4‑10‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11‑Q of 1981).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Delay‑Condonation ‑ Contention that petitioner having been suffering from eyesore could not secure certified copy of impugned order in time hence delay in filing petition for leave to appeal be condoned‑Suffering from eyesore, held, hardly a reason for delay of over a month in filing petition.‑[Delay].

Manzoor Ellahi, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 3rd March, 1982.

ORDER

M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.

‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the order/judgment dated 4‑10‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Cr. M. No. 11‑Q/81 whereby the petitioner's application under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. was dismissed.

2. It may be mentioned that the petition is barred by 33 days. The petitioner has filed an application for the condonation of delay stating therein that as he was suffering from eyesore and, therefore, he could not secure the certified copy of the impugned order in time. This could hardly be a reason for the delay of over a month in filing the present petition.

3. The petitioner filed an application for the quashment of the proceed ings in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, but the same was dismissed on 4‑10‑1981. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed the present petition on 13‑12‑1981. No valid or reasonable cause is shown for the delay in filing this petition which is hopelessly time barred and is accordingly dismissed.

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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
property advocate from Hattian lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.