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.
High Court Appeal No.78 of 1985, decided on 1st January, 1986.
--S.5--High Court Appeal--Limitation--Appeal filed with a -delay of more than two and a half months and appellant failing to sufficiently explain every day's delay in his application under S.5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay--Delay not condoned and consequently appeal, held, barred by time and dismissed.
Muhammad Akhtar for Appellant.
Ghulam Ali Akhokhar for Respondent.
--This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay on the basis that the appellant had gone to Khirpur for some personal work on 20th April, 1985 and had fallen ill there and was confined to bed for more than 2 months and due to physical weakness he was unable to move and walk. There is no medical certificate of any Doctor filed alongwith this affidavit and therefore it would be very difficult to believe the statement of the deponent that he was confined to bed for more than 2 months. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge was made on 17-4-85 and 6 days were taken in obtaining certified copies between 29-4-85 and 4-5-85. The High Court Appeal should have been filed maximum on 13-4-85 including 6 days taken in obtaining the certified copies. The appeal was however filed on 4-8-1985 and thus appellant had to explain a delay of more than 2 months but he has miserably failed to do so. He was required to explain every day's delay and therefore the delay between 13-5-85 to 31-5-85 when the court was open should have been sufficiently explained and supported by some documents but the same has not been done. Therefore, the further explanation of the appellant that he was told that the courts were closed between June and July 1985 is of no consequence. This application is therefore dismissed. The consequence of this order would be that the main High Court Appeal No.78/1986 is found to have been filed beyond time and consequently it is dismissed as barred by time.
M.Y.H./ M-290/ K Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer