| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4809 2025 SLD 4809 = 2025 SCP 425 = 2026 SCMR 190 |
CIVIL APEPAL No.80-K of 2022 On appeal from the Judgment dated 03.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in High Court Appeal No.88/2013
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Mr. Altaf Hussain, ASC Mr. Ghulam Rasool Mangi, AOR
Sindh Irrigation & Drainage Authority ..…Appellant
VERSUS
Province of Sindh and another ...Respondent
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 151,156, 5,3
Tagline : (1) Appeal against the decree/Order passed by HC in its Original jurisdiction could be filed within 20 days under Article 151 of the Limitation Act (2) The expression “sufficient cause” is dependent on bona fide explanation (3) No straitjacket formula is provided for condoning delay but each case is to be weighed in its peculiar facts including the conduct of the parties.
Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal challenging the High Court’s decision to reject the appellant’s delayed High Court Appeal. The Court held that the appeal was time-barred under Article 151 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which prescribes a 20-day limitation for appeals against decrees/orders passed by the High Court in its original jurisdiction. The appellant failed to provide a bona fide explanation for the delay, and the grounds offered (such as the award being void) were insufficient for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court emphasized that limitation is a matter of public policy, and courts must not condone delay without a satisfactory explanation, as the law favors the vigilant, not the indolent.
Core Points
- The appeal was filed against a High Court decree/order passed in its original jurisdiction.
- Article 151 of the Limitation Act, 1908, prescribes a 20-day limitation for such appeals.
- The appellant’s appeal was filed after the prescribed period, making it time-barred.
- The appellant sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
- The grounds offered (e.g., the award being void) were not sufficient for condonation.
- The Court reiterated that limitation is a matter of public policy and must be strictly enforced.
- No straitjacket formula exists for condoning delay; each case is decided on its own facts and circumstances.
- The law favors the vigilant and not the indolent; delay without a bona fide reason cannot be condoned.
- The appeal was dismissed as it was hopelessly time-barred.
Law and Section
| Law/Section | Provision | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Article 151, Limitation Act, 1908 | 20 days for appeal against decree/order of High Court in original jurisdiction | Appeal must be filed within 20 days; otherwise, it is time-barred. |
| Article 156, Limitation Act, 1908 | 90 days for appeal against decree/order under CPC to High Court (except cases under Article 151/153) | Not applicable here, as the appeal was against a High Court decree in original jurisdiction. |
| Section 5, Limitation Act, 1908 | Condonation of delay in filing appeal | Appellant must provide a bona fide explanation for delay; insufficient grounds were offered. |
| Section 3, Limitation Act, 1908 | Court must consider limitation even if not raised by parties | Limitation is a matter of public policy and must be strictly enforced. |
Judgment