Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Review Application No.46 of 1981 in C.P.S.L.A. No.852 of 1979, decided on 31st March, 1982.
(Against the Supreme Court's order, dated 16‑12‑1984).
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, rr.l & 2‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Review by Supreme Court‑‑Petition time‑barred by 184 days‑‑Delay caused due to failure of Advocate‑on‑Record in informing about impugned judgment and petitioner's pre‑occupations with medical care and attention of his ailing sister‑‑Crounds, held, not sufficient to explain delay‑‑Petition dismissed as time.
Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Nasim, Advocate
Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 31st March, 1982.
‑‑ The petitioner, a civil servant, seeks review of an order of this Court, dated 16th December, 1986 refusing him leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
The only ground on which the review is sought is that what this Court treated as the second representation was, in fact, the first representation and if that mistake had not occurred the conclusion drawn with regard to the appeal before the tribunal being time‑barred would not have been drawn.
It appears that even the review petition filed in this Court is barred by 184 days. The judgment was delivered on 16th December 1980. The application for a copy of the judgment was filed on 3rd February 1981, that is, after the period of limitation had expired. The copy was ready on 21st March, 1981 but its delivery was taken on 27th July, 1981 and then the review petition was filed on 28th July, 1981 The reason advanced for making an application for a copy of the judgment after the expiry of the period of limitation is not rooted in any personal disability of the petitioner but the failure of his Advocate -on‑Record to inform him at a proper time of the judgment and also his own pre‑occupations with the medical care and attention to his ailing sister. These grounds are not sufficient for explaining the delay in filing a review petition. Hence it is dismissed as being time‑barred.
M . I Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer