Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 3000 = 1974 SLD 3000 = 1974 SCMR 38

Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 202 and 203 of 1973, decided on 11th October 1973. (From the judgment and order, dated 12-12-1972, passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, in L. P. As. Nos. 317 and 267 of 1971, respectively).
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Muhammad Gul, J
Maqbul Ilahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Khalil ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.

C. P. S. L. A. No. 202 of 1973 CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER-Petitioners

VERSUS

GHULAM GHAUS Etc. Respondents C. P. S. L. A. No. 203 of 1973 OFFICER-ON-SPECIAL DUTY, CENTRAL RECORD OFFICE, LAHORE-Petitioner versus FAQIRIA-Respondent

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 149

  Limitation Condonation of delay-Delay in filing petition for Special Leave to Appeal by Government-Ground for condonation: file mislaid in office and delays common in Government offices-Held, delay, save in exceptional cases not lightly condoned; department of Government not entitled to any leniency in such matters-Supreme Court Rules, 1965, O. XIII, r. 1-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 149. Date of hearing s 11th October 1973.                                                                                                                                JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD GUL, J.---These two petitions for special leave are from the judgment of a Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissing as barred by limitation, L. P. A. No. 317 of 1971 jointly instituted by the petitioner in each of the two petitions herein. These two petitions are also beyond time by 67 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed in each petition in which the grounds pleaded for condonation are the same. 2. The ground pleaded for condonation is that after obtaining the copies of the impugned judgment, the departmental file was submitted to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for sanction for filing the special leave petitions and for sanctioning funds. The file was mislaid in office and was not traced until 8-5-1973 by which time the limitation had already expired. It took another ten days to discuss the matter with law advisors and to draft the two petitions. Learned counsel submitted that such delays are common in Governmental Offices and the Courts generally take lenient view in such cases. In our view there is no sufficient cause in either of these two petitions. The office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was certainly remiss in not having taken proper care of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register