Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No.532 of 1976, decided on 29th May, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 24‑2‑1976 of the Lahore High Court in L.P.A. No.30 of 1975).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Condonation of delay‑ Petition barred by 437 days‑‑Erroneous filing of appeal before incompetent forum and time spent in pursuance thereof‑‑Held, not a sufficient ground for condoning delay‑‑Petition dismissed as barred by time.

Jariullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S.H. Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 20th May, 1984.

.‑‑According to the office note, this petition is barred by 437 days.

2. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 20‑1‑1975.. Against the said order, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the High Court which was dismissed as incompetent on 24‑2‑1976. This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20‑1‑1975. This petition against the said order is barred by 437 days.

3.The only ground urged in excuse of the delay is that a seniors counsel had erroneously filed the appeal before the Letters Patent Bench against the order of learned Single Judge and the time consumed ins pursuing that remedy may be excluded.

4. We do not consider that this is a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Clearly no appeal by before the Letters Patent Bench and the appeal that was filed was not at all competent. There being ambiguity on this regard, the time spent in pursuing the remedy before the Letters Patent Bench, cannot be condoned.

5.This petition, therefore, fails on the ground of limitation and is dismissed accordingly.

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.