Law:

Section:

Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court Petition for-Taken back by Attorney for filing annexure-Such annexure along with petition filed 70 days after time-Application for condonation delay submitted not as a pre-requisite in such a case but only to "meet objection of the Court's office"-Petition, held, barred by time-Client's ignorance of necessity of dealing with Attorney­ Not sufficient excuse to condone default-(Client's remedy against Attorney). JUDGMENT CORNELIUS, C. J.-This petition is barred by time by 70 days. Mr. S. A. Saeed appears as Advocate for the petitioner, and lays the blame on the Attorney, Ch. Feroz Din. It seems that the petition, which mentions a number of annexure, was filed within time without the annexure, in the first instance. The office note shows that the petition itself was taken back by the Attorney, to be completed and returned. It was actually returned 70 days after expiry of limitation. It is not clear whether it was the Attorney or the client who was responsible for this delay. An application for condonation was filed separately later, and the excuse was given that "the annexure are not part of the order under appeal, hence the appeal is within time". It was added that the application for condonation was being submitted" to meet the office objection". Ch. Feroz Din is not present today. He has discontinued working as an Attorney. This case, it seems is being handled by another Attorney, Mr. Ghulam Mohyuddin, who is not present. It is clear that the condonation application…

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