Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 534 of 1975, decided on 13th December, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 5th June, 1974, in W.P. 6‑R of 1973).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLVII, rr. 1 & 2‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Petition for special leave to appeal barred by 309 days ‑‑Condonation of delay sought on ground that petitioner had been in good faith pursuing remedy of review in High Court which was dismissed on ground that case was not a fit one for review‑‑Held, pursuit of review in circumstances was not bona fide but clear negligent act and time spent therein cannot be allowed‑‑Order of High Court not suffering from any infirmity as to warrant inter ference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing‑ 13th December, 1980.

‑‑ This is a petition against an order of the High Court, dated 5th June, 1974, dismissing a constitu tional petition being W.P. 6‑R of 1973, filed by the petitioner. The petition was barred by 309 days. The application has been filed for condonation of delay, on the ground that the petitioner had been in good faith pursuing another remedy namely, of review in the High Court which was instituted somewhere in July, 1974 and was dismissed on 15th May, 1975, on the short ground that this was not a fit case for review. Learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that the grounds taken were such which could have been urged in review. In that view of the matter the pursuit of review was not bona fide but a clear negligent act and the time spent therein cannot be allowed. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.

2. The petitioner in this petition has also challenged the order whereby the High Court dismissed the review petition on 15th May, 1975 and in the alternative seeks leave to appeal against the same. Here again the petitioner as already mentioned has not been able to satisfy us that there really exists any case for review and that the order of the High Court holding contrarily suffers from any infirmity so as to warrant interference by this court. Moreover, having dismissed the petition against the main order, dated 5th June, 1974, the question of granting leave against the order of refusing the review even otherwise does not arise.

3. The result is that petition fails and is dismissed in limine.

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.