Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 621 of 1977, decided on 1st September, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 23‑6‑1977, in I.‑C. A. 155/76 in W. P. 673/66).

‑‑ S. 5‑Condonation of delay‑Evidence on record showing petitioner having been attending to case and to have obtained certified copies of various documents‑Condo nation of delay sought on ground of petitioner having remained confined to bed for some time due to an accident and a medical certificate, attached in support of averment‑Medical certificate, held, cannot in such circumstances come to rescue of petitioner, there being no explanation as to why institution of application for condonation of delay alone delayed and particularly when delay after obtaining relevant certified copies still remained unexplained.

Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 1st September, 1981.

This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order dated 23‑6‑1977, whereby an Intra Court Appeal/LPA was dismissed by the Nigh Court, maintaining the order of the learned Single Judge of that Court dated 12‑11‑1976, whereby a constitutional petition being W. P. No. 673/66 was dismissed.

2. The appeal is barred by 38 days against the order of the learned Division Bench and 261 days against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. There is an application for condonation of delay. We have heard the learned counsel and also gone through the aforesaid application which in our opinion makes out no case for condonation of delay. A plea has been taken that the petitioner remained confined to bed for some time due to an accident and a medical certificate has been attached in support of this averment. The said certificate, in our opinion, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner, because, evidence is available on the record in the form of obtaining certified copies of various documents etc, that despite the aforesaid illness the petitioner was attending to the case, and there is no explanation as to why only institution of this petition was delayed for all the period involved in this case, and particularly the delay‑ even after obtaining the relevant certified copies, still remained unexplained. In short the application filed does not, as the law requires, cover or explain each day of limitation.

3. The result is that the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the petition is dismissed as time‑barred.

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.