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 Review Petition No. 1‑Q of 1986, decided on 25th October, 1986.
‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI. Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Review‑‑Petition time‑barred‑‑No error in impugned judgment requiring correction‑‑No cogent ground for, condonation of delay shown‑‑Petition dismissed.
‑‑‑Arts. 188 & 185(2)(d)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Review sought on ground that petition for leave to appeal was filed erroneously although appeal as of right was competent under Art. 185(2)(d)‑‑Held, since petitioner's counsel failed to point out at hearing of petition that appeal was of right was competent, could not seek relief by way of review‑‑Review petition dismissed.
‑‑‑Arts. 188 & 185(2)(d)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, Rr.1 & 2‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908). S.5‑‑Limitation‑‑Accrual of precious rights to opposite party‑‑Civil review petition time‑barred‑‑Review sought on ground that petition for leave to appeal was filed erroneously while appeal as of right was competent‑‑Plea not entertained because by time petition for leave to appeal was filed alleged appeal as of right had admittedly been rendered time‑barred‑‑Precious rights having accrued to opposite‑party for lapses on part of petitioner, no case for condonation of delay was made out‑‑Review petition dismissed.
M. Aslam Chishti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th October, 1986.
This is a petition for review of the judgment of this Court, dated 5‑5‑1986 by which a civil petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner from the judgment of the High Court, dated 4‑11‑1985 was dismissed. Review is sought on the ground that the petitioner had filed the civil petition for leave to appeal erroneously and as a matter of fact an appeal as of right against the impugned judgment of the High Court, dated 4‑11‑1985 was competent under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution.
Admittedly this petition for review is time‑barred by 35 days and by the time petitioner filed the petition for leave to appeal in this Court the alleged appeal as of right under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution had itself been rendered as time‑barred by 27 days. No cogent ground for the condonation of the delay of 35 days in the filing of the review petition is made out. Moreover, even if the delay were to be condoned, then also there is no error in the judgment of this Court, dated 5‑5‑1986 which requires correction by review. It was open to the learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing of the petition which was decided by the judgment, dated 5‑5‑1986 to point out that as a matter of fact an appeal as of right was competent. This was not done and for this omission on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner. the petitioner cannot now seek relief by way of a review petition.
There is yet another hurdle in the way of the petitioner even if all the aforesaid points were to be ignored. It is that by the time the petitioner filed the petition for leave to appeal, the alleged appeal as of right against the judgment of the High Court, dated 4‑11‑1985 had admittedly been rendered as time barred by 27 days. Since precious rights had accrued to the opposite party for the lapses on the part of the petitioner, no case for the condonation of that delay is made out.
For the above reasons this review petition is dismissed as 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