Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 807 of 1982, decided on 13th February, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 20‑7‑1982 of the Lahore High Court lit Writ Petition No. 175‑R/1981).

--Art. 185(3)‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Limitation‑Petition time-barred by one day‑No sufficient' cause for condonation of delay established‑Valuable right accruing to respondent‑Petition dismissed on ground of limitation.‑[Limitation].

Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Sh Advo cate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on Record for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing : 13th‑February, 1983.

.‑The petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 175‑R. 1981 passed on 20‑3‑1982.

The petition is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the delay is only of one day and an application has been submitted praying for condonation of the said delay. The main reason given in excuse of the delay is that the petitioners came to know about the announcement of the judgment after a considerable time from the date of its announcement. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 came to Lahore to obtain a copy of the judgment and returned home to arrange for the expenses for filing this petition and the fee of the counsel, etc. However, he fell ill on 20‑9‑1981 and remained confined to bed also on 21‑9‑1981. The petition was filed on 22‑9‑1981. In support of this assertion a medical certificate has also been attached. This was issued by the Women Medical Officer, Tehsil Headquarter, Narowal and, is undated. It appears to be a standard pro forma containing some blanks to enable the mention of the name of the patient; the disease of which he has been suffering and the period for which complete rest was advised. The perusal of the medical certificate does not inspire any confidence. Moreover, according to it he was advised complete rest for 20th and 21st September, 1981. It is difficult to believe that if he was resting even on the 21st September, 1981, in his village in Tehsil Narowal how he could complete all the formalities and file this petition at Lahore on 22‑9‑1982.

We, therefore, do not think the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Even though, the delay is only of cite day but since a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondents (Non. 3 to 5) and no sufficient can for condonation of this delay has been established, this petition roust fail o the ground of limitation.

This petition is, therefore, dismissed as barred by‑time.

S. Q. 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.