Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 96

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S.5---Condonation of delay---Expression 'sufficient cause'---Scope---Power of court to condone delay under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 is a matter of discretion---What may constitute 'sufficient cause' in one set of circumstances, may not do in another set of circumstances---Events/Causes/Reasons that constitute 'sufficient cause' under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 cannot and should not be laid down by hard and fast rules lest a matter of discretion is converted to a rigid rule of law---Expression 'sufficient cause' has always been construed liberally depending on circumstances of each case. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96---Appeal---Condonation of delay---Departmental approval---Suit for specific performance of allotment of amenity plot for purposes of running a school was decreed in favour of plaintiff and against Metropolitan Corporation---Appeal was barred by 04 days and condonation of delay was sought on grounds of delay in process of obtaining requisite approval from competent authority---Validity---Delay was inherent in impersonal machinery of government departmental procedures and approvals---Plea of departmental delay by Government for purposes of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 was peculiar to Government as opposed to an ordinary litigant---Such plea could not be rejected outright and required to be considered on its own merits---Division Bench of High Court condoned delay of 04 days by Government as explanation of delay offered by Metropolitan Corporation was treated as "sufficient cause"---High Court directed the Chief Executive of Metropolitan Corporation to initiate departmental proceedings against officials responsible for such delay---Application was allowed in circumstances. Civil Aviation Authority v. Providence Aviation (Pvt.) Ltd. 2000 CLC 1722; Muhammad Malik v. Chairman, Mirpur Development Authority 1997 CLC 480; Federation of Pakistan v. Jamaluddin 1996 SCMR 727; Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad PLD 2015 SC 212 and Khushi Muhammad v. Fazal Bibi PLD 2016 SC 872 ref. Superintendent of Central Excise,…

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