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 Revision No.446 of 1986, decided on 6th July, 1986.
‑‑S.5‑‑Eleven days delay in filing appeal‑ ‑Condonation of‑‑Explanation that eleven days' delay occurred in transmission of sanction for filing of appeal, held, insufficient in absence of statement to show how Legal Department at Headquarters Office stumbled in‑ matter‑‑In absence of plausible explanation of each day's delay in filing appeal, appellate Court's order in refusing condonation of delay was unexceptionable.
Islam Ali Qureshi for Petitioner.
Arguments heard.
Through this revision petition the order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 5‑3‑1986, dismissing the appeal of the Water and Power Development Authority, the present petitioner, has been assailed. It is contended that the appeal was filed eleven days after the expiry of limitation, as the delay took place at the Headquarter Office of Water and Power Development Authority in granting sanction for the filing of the appeal.
2. With the assistance of .the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the application filed by the Water and Power Development Authority before the appellate Court under section 5 of the Limitation Act and find that nothing has been stated therein to show how the Legal Department at the Headquarter's Office stumbled in the matter. Each day's delay should have been explained in the said application, which has not been done. What only has been stated is that delay occurred in the transmission of the sanction for the preferment of the appeal, which by itself is not sufficient to explain the delay, In these circumstances, the dismissal of the appeal appears to be legal and" proper. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer