Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 155‑R of 1984, decided on 29th May, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 22‑4‑1984 of the Pesha war High Court, Circuit Abbottabad passed in C. M. No. 156/84).

--Art. 185 (3)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑Appeal time‑barred‑Condonation of delay sought on ground of filing appeal in wrong forum‑Provision relating to forum of appeal not in doubt‑Mistake of counsel on account of his gross negligence‑Held, cannot be a reason for condoning delay- Leave to appeal refused.‑[Condonation of delay‑Counsel and client].

Mst. Mahmooda Begum and others v. Major Malik Muhammad Ishaq and others C. A. No. 208 of 1977 ref.

Muhammad Rafiq Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 29th May, 1984.

‑One Abdul Majid Khan now represented by his legal representatives sued the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 70,000 and interest at the rate of 13 per cent per annum on the basis of a pronote and a receipt dated 4th of November, 1974. These documents were execut ed by Zarin Khan, who died 'issueless leaving the petitioner as his sole surviver. The suit was decreed on 28th of June, 1983, and an appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Haripur on 16th of July, 1983, which was dismissed on 21st of February, 1984.

The petitioner next filed an appeal in the High Court alleging that he had earlier filed an appeal in a wrong forum and sought for the condona tion of delay, but the High Court rejected the appeal on the ground that there could not be two opinions as to the forum in which the appeal should have been filed and as no valid reason was given as to why the appeal had been filed before the District Judge, there was no occasion to condone the delay, and the appeal was, accordingly, disposed of.

In Mst. Mahmooda Begum and others v. Major Malik Muhammad Ishaq and others C. A. No. 208 of 1977 we have held that no benefit of any bona fide mistake can be given as the provision, relating to the forum where the appeal should have been filed, was not in doubt, and if the counsel had made a mistake on account of his gross negligence that cannot be a reason for condoning the delay.

Accordingly, we find the order of the High Court to be unexceptionable, and dismiss the petition.

S. Q. Appeal 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.