Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 240 1974 SLD 240 1974 SCMR 482
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 232 of 1973, decision dated: 14th March 1974.(From the judgment and order, dated 3-10-1972 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 163 of 1971)
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD GUL, J
Ejaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) instructed by Raja Abdul Razzaque, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent No. 1.Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Responde

Sardar ANIANULLAH KHAN AND others

VS

SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

Limitation Act (IX of 1909)-- S. 5-Delay, condonation of-Application for copy of order initially delayed by 55 days-Delivery of copy taken after 94 days of its preparation-Fact indicative of gross negligence on part of counsel's clerk (applying for copy) and want of due diligence on part of petitioner-Petitioner's Advocate although intimately con­cerned not filing any affidavit-Petition for ]cave to appeal still not filed till after expiry of 11 days of receipt of copy-Delay of each day not explained-Petition dismissed as barred by time. Lachmi Chand Babu Lal v. Unkar Mal Chotee Lal A I R 1919 All. 35i distinguished. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-This petition is from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 3-10-1972. The petition was filed on 1-6-1973 and excluding the time taken for obtaining the copies, it is beyond limitation by 161 days. To make out a case for condonation of this long delay, petitioner No. 6 has filed her affidavit. Reliance is also placed upon the affidavit of the clerk who was directed by the petitioners' counsel in the High Court to apply on behalf of the petitioners for certified copies. Petitioner No. 6 in her affidavit has stated that on 3-10-1972, she was informed by her counsel, Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Advocate, that the petitioners' Letters Patent Appeal had been dismissed. On the following day, she called on her counsel in his office and instructed him to apply for the copies for filing a petition for special leave and on his direction she paid the necessary expenses to his clerk the same day. Thereafter, she has been inquiring oil and on from her counsel and his clerk about the certified copies and each time she was informed that the copies were not ready and that she would be informed as soon as copies are received. However, when she failed to get any information from her counsel, she visited his office on 20-51-1973 to inquire about the copies. She also asked the clerk to let her have the receipt issued from the Copying Agency. The clerk after making a search for the brief of the case, told her that the case papers had been mislaid and she should call on the next day and in the meantime he would try to trace the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492