Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 1243 2010 SLD 1243 2010 YLR 226
Sindh High Court
Civil Revision Application No. 17 of 2008 and C.M.A. No. 71 of 2009, decided & hearing on 27-03-2009.
ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JUSTICE
Abdul Haleem Qureshi for Applicant. Nemo for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD IQBAL

VS

HAKEEM MOHSIN JAN

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 149

Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S.5---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149---Time barred appeal---Condonation of delay---Scope---Lack of funds for court fee with petitioner---Extension of time filed appeal before Lower Appellate Court which was dismissed being barred by seven days---Plea raised by petitioner was that because of paucity of funds for court fee he could not file appeal within time---Validity---If petitioner did not have funds to pay court-fee, then he could have filed appeal without payment of court fee and sought further time from Court by filing application under S.149 C.P.C. for submission of court-fee-Neither appeal was filed in time nor any application under S.149 C.P.C. was filed before Lower Appellate Court---Plea raised by petitioner regarding his paucity to arrange court fee was not reasonable and plausible to condone delay of seven days in filing of appeal---After expiry of limitation period a valuable right stood accrued in favour of opposite party, which could not be snatched or brushed aside leniently---Party guilty of limitation was duty bound and under obligation to explain each days delay in submission ofappeal, when period of limitation had expired did not explain delay ofeven a single day except general plea regarding his paucity to arrange court-fee-Delay in filing of appeal was not satisfactorily explained and a valuable right accrued in favour of respondent which could not be denied to him to reap the fruit ofdecree---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Lower Appellate Court, as jurisdiction vested in the Court was exercised legally and properly---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Sarfraz v. Muhammad Aslam Khan and another reported in 2001 SCMR 1062; Abdul Ghani v. Mst. Shaheen and others 2007 SCMR 834 and Mst. Afroz Qureshi v. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui N.L.R. 1995 CLJ 549 distinguished. Attaullah Shaikh v. WAPDA 2001 SCMR 269 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JUSTICE:---.--- This Civil Revision under section. 115, C.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 25-3-2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Ghotki whereby the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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