Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No.92‑R of 1984, decided on 10th March, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 23‑1‑1984 of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in R.F.A. No.34 of 1983).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Counsel's negligence‑‑Appeal before wrong forum‑‑Later withdrawn and presented before Court of competent jurisdiction‑‑Time barred‑‑Plea of bona fide mistaken advice of counsel, not accepted Gross ignorance of law on part of counsel not to be regarded as ill‑advice 'and as such not good ground for condonation of delay‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑[Counsel and client].

Kumar Rajendra Bahadur Singh v. Rai Rajeshwar Bali, and others

A I R 1937 P C 276 ref.

Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Sarwar P L D' 1977 S C 102; Mirza Muhammad Saeed v. Shahab‑ud‑Din P L D 1983 S C 385; Mst. Mehmooda Begum and others v. Major Malik Muhammad Ishaq and others 1984 SCMR 890 and Bashir Ahmed v. Government of the Punjab and others 1985 S C M R 333 rel.

Haji M.S. Mehboob, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Abdul Shakoor, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 10th March‑, 1.985.

The petitioner filed the appeal against judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge before the District Judge. The matter remained pending before the latter for about a year when the petitioner's counsel himself pointed out that the value of the subject‑matter of appeal exceeded his pecuniary jurisdiction and prayed for return of the memorandum of appeal for presenting it to the High Court. The memorandum of appeal was returned and, thereafter, submitted before the High Court. The question arose whether the delay should be condoned.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal filed before the District Judge was on account of the bona fide mistake of his counsel and the delay was liable to be condoned as it was occasioned on account of the mistaken advice given by the counsel. In support of this submission reliance was placed on a decision of the Privy Council in Kumar Rajendra Bahadur Singh v. Rai Raieshwar Bali and others A I R 1937 P . C ' 276. The learned Judges in the High Court, however, relying on two decisions of this Court, namely, Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Sarwar P L D 1977 S C 102 and Mirza Muhammad Saeed v. Shahab‑ud‑Din P L D 1983 S.C. 385 rejected this plea observing that the mistake in approaching the wrong forum was committed by the counsel of the appellant (petitioner herein) due to gross negligence and carelessness and, therefore, the delay could not be condoned.

In support of this petition, Mr. M.S. Mehboob, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was not to be blamed. He had engaged a counsel, paid the ful court‑fee and filed the appeal, though in the wrong forum, on account of the mistaken advice of his counsel, but with due diligence, only 14 days after the decision given by the trial Court, and he could not be blamed for the delay. On the other hand, the delay had occurred simply on account of the mistaken advice of the counsel and, therefore, this was a fit case in which the delay should have been condoned.

The question of condonation of delay on account of the mistaken advice has again been considered by this Court in two recent cases and it has been held that gross ignorance of law on the part of the counsel cannot be regarded as an ill‑advice and such a ground cannot successfully be urged in support of the plea for condonation of delay; A see Mst. Mehmooda Begum & others v. Major Malik Muhammad Ishaq and others 1984 S C M R 890 and Bashir Ahmad v .Government of the Punjab and others 1985 S C M R 333.

The upshot is that we find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

M. I. 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.