Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 516 of 1974, decided on 12th March, 1976.

(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 20‑9‑1973 in writ petition No. 747‑R of 1973).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XIII; r. 1‑‑Limitation‑‑Time‑barred petition‑‑Application for condonation of delay‑‑Nothing on record beyond bare affidavit of one of petitioners to support contention that certified copy, though ready for delivery, was not delivered by mistake on part of copying agency‑‑No explanation for further delay of more than one month taken in filing time‑barred petition‑‑Petition dismissed as time‑barred.

Hassan Ahmad Kanwar instructed by S. Ianyat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order, dated 20th September, 1973 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore dismissing in limine a consti tutional petition filed by the petitioners herein against the respondents. This petition is barred by 195 days and the petitioner has filed an application under Rule 1, Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules for the condonation of the delay in this petition. It is alleged that the petitioners are living in Chak No.145/9‑L, away from Sahiwal and got the information about the impugned order passed by the High Court very late. On this on 18‑10‑1973, one of the petitioners applied for a certified copy of the order. It is alleged that thereafter on at least two occasions, he came to call at the High Court for delivery of the certified copy of the order to him. For the last time, he again came to the High Court on the 14th May, 1974 when the certified copy of the impugned order was delivered to him. But according to the endorsement at the copy it had been made ready on the 1st November, 1973, but its delivery was taken from the High Court after about 6 months only on the 14th May, 1974. It is alleged that it was due to the fault on the part of the High Court. The certified copy was not delivered to the petitioner on two or three occasions when he came to collect it and was informed that the same was not ready. Admittedly, according to the practice, the Copying Agency always endorses successive dates from time to time on the receipt issued to the applicant for copies. But we are informed that no receipt of record to these receipts is maintained and they are destroyed after they have returned to the Copying Agency on the delivery of the copies to the applicant. We have ascertained from the High Court that there is no such record available in the High Court pertaining to this case. Therefore, beyond the bare affidavit of one of the petitioners, there is nothing on this record to support the contention to the effect that the certified copy although it was ready for delivery on the 1st November, 1973, yet it was not in fact delivered to him by mistake on the part of the Copying Agency till the 14th May, 1974. But this is not sufficient to discharge the onus resting on the petitioners in this behalf. Even otherwise, in this case admittedly the copy was delivered to the petitioner on the 14th May, 1974, yet this petition was not filed until more than a month thereafter on 17‑6‑197 and there is no explanation for the further time thus taken in filing this time‑barred petition. It is, therefore, dismissed as barred by time.

M. I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.