| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 95 2026 SLD 95 = 2025 LHC 432 |
F.A.O.No. 12 of 2025.
PRESENT; (Malik Javid Iqbal Wains) Judge
21.02.2025. Mr. Abid Ali Bodla, Advocate for the appellant.
Ashfaq Ahmed
VS
District & Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer District Consumer Court, Multan & another
Law: Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005
Section: 33, 34
SUMMARY
The appeal filed under Section 33 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 was barred by a delay of 41 days. The appellant sought condonation on the ground of being abroad at the time of the impugned order. However, documentary evidence revealed that the appellant returned to Pakistan within four days of the order and remained present during the entire limitation period. The explanation for delay was found vague, contradictory, and insufficient. In the absence of “sufficient cause,†the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, resulting in dismissal of the main appeal as time-barred.
TAG LINE
“Limitation law aids the vigilant, not the indolent—delay without sufficient cause is fatal to an appeal.â€
ORDER;