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. 1164 of 1980, decided on 30th November, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 2‑4‑1980, in W. P. No. 949‑R/79).
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑
‑‑ S. 5‑‑Condonation of delay‑Petition remaining time‑barred even if full time spent in obtaining copies be allowed‑Each day's delay in filing petition not satisfactorily explained‑No case for condonation of delay, held, made out.
Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 30th November, 1980.
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.
‑This is a petition against an order dated 2‑4‑1980, whereby the High Court accepted. Writ Petition No. 949‑R/79 and remanded the case for fresh decision. The petition is barred by 36 days. Learned counsel argued that some time was spent in obtaining the relevant copies and if the same is taken into account, the petition would be in time. The contention has no merit, because if full time spent in obtaining the relevant copy or copies is allowed even then the petition will remain time barred. Learned counsel filed an application for condonation of delay. We have gone through the same. In our opinion it does not make out and case for condonation of delay inasmuch as it does not satisfactorily explain, as the law is, each day of limitation.
2. The result is that this petition is dismissed 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