Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑300 of 1983, decided on 11th October, 1983.

(On appeal from the Judgment and Order of the Sind High Court Karachi, dated 13‑2‑1983 passed in Second Appeal No.320 of 1970).

‑‑‑Art.185 (3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1981, O.XXXIII, r.6‑‑Petition for special leave to appeal‑ ‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Petition time- barred by 8 days‑‑Vague and insufficient grounds urged not justifying condonation of delay‑‑Petition dismissed as barred by limitation.

Shafaat Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th October, 1983.

This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Sind High Court, dated 13‑2‑1983 and is admittedly barred by 8 days. Alongwith the petition the petitioner has submitted an application for condonation of delay under Order XXXIII, rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules read with section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition and he has contended that the delay in filing the main petition was for a sufficient cause, as he was taken ill from 14‑6‑1983 until 22‑6‑1983 due to which the petition could not be prepared and filed earlier, within time. His submission was that delay has not been occasioned on account of any negligence on the part of the petitioner.

3. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel carefully, we regret our inability to find any force in them. We find that in the supporting affidavit the nature of illness has not been disclosed, nor is there anything to the effect mentioned therein, that the counsel of the petitioner was so ill that he could not do any work or was medically advised to take complete rest. There is also nothing in the affidavit as to when the counsel was engaged. If the counsel was engaged on 14‑6‑1983 then the period of limitation appears to have already expired and the petitioner has not explained why he could not engage a counsel earlier. Additionally no explanation has been given why, if Mr. Shafaat Hussain was ill, the services of another counsel were not availed of or why the advocate‑on‑record could not prepare and file the petition to save the petition from being time‑barred. Learned counsel was unable to give a satisfactory reply to all these questions but only submitted that he was suffering from jaundice.

4. It is now well‑settled that valuable rights accrue to the successful party in the litigation on the expiry of the period of limitation and the delay in presenting an appeal or petition can only be condoned when each day's delay is satisfactorily explained. We are accordingly of the firm view that the vague and insufficient grounds urged in the case do not justify the condonation of delay. We, therefore, dismiss the application.

5. In the result the petition for leave to appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.

S.Q. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.