Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 96

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12 , 54

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 96 & O.IX R. 13--Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 54--Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908), S. 5--Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction instituted--Defendants proceeded ex-parte--Application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings dismissed--Condonation of delay--Appeal filed before incompetent forum--Bona fide prosecution of remedy--Sufficient cause--Dismissal of appeal as time-barred--Wrong forum--Appeal--Regular first appeal--Time-barred appeal--Delay after return of memorandum of appeal--Negligence--Due diligence--Public policy--Valuable right accrued by limitation--Clean hands--Plausible explanation--Ex-parte proceedings--Once a valuable right had accrued to a successful litigant by efflux of time, it could not be disturbed except upon demonstration of sufficient cause within contemplation of law--A party seeking condonation of delay was required to approach Court with clean hands, disclose all material facts and furnish a plausible, satisfactory and bona fide explanation covering entire period of delay--Negligence, indolence or casual conduct did not constitute sufficient cause--A litigant invoking equitable discretion must establish continuous bona fide pursuit of remedy--Where negligence intervenes after return of proceedings, protective plea of bona fide prosecution lost much of its force--High Court had, therefore, aptly dealt with matter in holding appeal to be barred by limitation and dismissing same accordingly--Petitioner preferred an appeal before a forum lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, resulting in return of memorandum of appeal--Even thereafter, appeal before High Court was instituted after an unexplained delay of approximately 37 days from date of return, and was further rendered incompetent for non-impleadment of necessary parties--Cumulative conduct of Petitioner unmistakably reflects negligence, lack of diligence and casual disregard for process of law--Petition dismissed.      [Pp. 502 & 503] A, B & C Mr. Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Petitioner. Mr. Abdul Rahman Hur, ASC for Respondent No.…