Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 185 and 186 of 1978, decided on 9th August, 1981.
(Against judgments and orders of the Lahore High Court, dated 12‑11‑1976 in W.P. No.337iR‑72 and W.P. No.673/66 and orders, dated 21‑3‑1978 in Review Petitions No.9/77 and 8/77; respectively).
‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Orders of High Court dismissing writ petitions and Review Petitions of petitioners on ground of limitation‑‑Petitions for leave to appeal barred by time as against orders of High Court dismissing Writ Petitions‑‑No good ground furnished for condonation of delay‑‑Review Petition was dismissed by High Court as barred by time and no impressive explanation for condoning delay was furnished by petitioners‑‑Orders of High Court, held, were justified‑‑Leave refused.
S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Kh. Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for petitioner.
Nemo for. Respondents.
Date of hearing: 9th August, 1981.
This order will dispose of C.P. No.185 of 1978 and C . P. No. 186 of 1978.
2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioners filed two Writ Petitions (i.e. No.377/72 and 673/66), which, were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 12‑11‑1976. They then filed two Review Petitions (Nos.9 and 8 of 1977, respectively), which were barred by 21 days. Since no plausible explanation for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petitions was put forward, the same were dismissed on 12‑11‑1976.
The petitioners have now filed the present Petitions for Leave to Appeal against the orders dismissing the Writ Petitions as well as those dismissing their Review Petitions.
3. The Petitions are barred by as many as 449 days, as against the orders dismissing the writ petitions. The learned counsel has not been able to furnish any good ground for condonation of the delay. He has only submitted that the Petitions for Leave to Appeal are within time as far as the orders dismissing the Review Petitions are concerned. But as already mentioned, the Review Applications were time‑barred and were dismissed as such. The learned counsel explained that the application for review were filed after the expiry of limitation, because the counsel for the petitioners was under the erroneous impression that the period for filing an application for review was 90 days. As observed earlier, the learned Judge in Chamber, was not impressed by the explanation for the delay in filing the Review applications, and refused to condone the delay and distressed the application as time‑barred. We find ‑no defect in this order and feel that the learned Judge in Chamber was justified in dismissing the Review applications as time‑barred.
4. In this view of the matter, the two Petitions are dismissed having no merit.
M . Y . H . Leave petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer