Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 858, of 1979, decided on 7th August, 1983.

(From the judgment dated 26th June, 1979 of the Lahore High Court passed in Review Application No. 22 of 1977 in Writ Petition No. 265/R of 1977).

---Art. 185(3)‑Petition for leave to appeal‑Limitation‑‑Delay of each and every day to be explained.-‑[Limitation].

Zafarullah Khan v. Hussain Bibi P L D 1968 S C 61 ref.

‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Petition for leave to appeal‑Limitation‑‑High Court declining to interfere with finding of fact of Tribunal below‑Review application against such order also dismissed‑Petitioner cannot seek reversal of High Court's earlier original order passed about three years back‑Petition for leave to appeal late by 965 days dismissed.‑ [Limitation].

Ghulam Hussain v. Kanwar Ashiq Ali Khan P L D 1980 S C 198 ref.

Mian Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Shehzad Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th August, 1983.

The petitioners, who are informants, bad insti tuted a writ petition challenging the decision of the Settlement Commis sioner to allot the cancelled land to Rehmat Ali, respondent No. 3, who was held to be the prior informant. The High Court declining to interfere with the finding on a question of fact as to who between the petitioners and Rehmat Ali, respondent No. 3, was the prior informant, dismissed the writ petition in limine on 11‑2‑1977 The petitioners moved a review application but the same, too, was dismissed on 26‑6‑1979 for the reason that "Nothing fresh has been urged to justify review".

2. They have, by this petition, sought leave to appeal from the High Court's latter order dated 26‑6‑1979 whereby their review application had been dismissed. The petition is late by 28 days. The explanation offered is that Muhammad Anwar one of the petitioners, who had been deputed by the other petitioners to do the needful for filing the present petition had fallen ill in the third week of August, 1979 and had been advised rest for five weeks for which reason he could not obtain copies of the relevant documents in time. The explanation is not satisfactory and in any case the delay from 24‑9‑1979, when the copies had been made available, to 4‑10‑1979 when this petition was filed, is not explained. The delay of each and every day has to be explained as repeatedly held by this Court. See Zafarullah Khan v. Hussain Bibi (PLD 1968SC61) and Ahmad Din v. Rasul Bibi in the same report at p. 213. In fact, what the petitioners are really seeking, as is clear from the petition, is the reversal of the earlier decision of the High Court dated g 11‑2‑1977. But in that case their petition is late by 965 days. This Court had held in Ghulam Hussain v. Kanwar Ashiq Ali Khan (PLD 1980SC 198).

" .but while seeking leave to appeal against order refusing to review the main previous order, in fact the object of the petitioner is to seek vacation of the said previous order which by efflux of time has become final. The fact that in review the Court further affirmed the aforesaid order is immaterial inasmuch as a refusal to review the same will not give a fresh period of limitation to challenge it. In this peculiar situation, therefore, when the previous order has become binding on the petitioners, they cannot be allowed to bypass it by simply pleading that the present petition is against order refusing to review the same because while stating so their intention is to point out errors and mistakes in the basic order which were sought to be removed through a review application but which failed.

3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

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.