| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 1418 2001 SLD 1418 2001 SCMR 894 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos. 1502 and 1503 of 2000, decision dated: 6-10-2000
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents
Civil Petitions Nos. 1502 and 1503 of 2000, decision dated: 6-10-2000
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents
MUHAMMAD WARIS
VS
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another
Law:
Section:
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---- -- S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Condonation of delay--Illness stated to be the cause of delay---Failure to file medical certificate---Effect---Revision was barred by time---Cause for the delay was stated to be illness---Application for condonation of delay was filed and the same was supported by affidavit---Neither any counter-affidavit was filed, nor any material was placed on the record to counter the plea of illness--High Court condoned the delay by accepting the plea of illness---Validity--Where other reliable material was available to support the ground of ailment -and no rebutting material had been brought on record by the contesting party, it was not for, all the time necessary to file medical certificate when illness was taken as a ground for condonation of delay---High Court, in view of the material on record, found that sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay---Such finding of fact could not be interfered by Supreme Court---Leave to appeal was refused. ORDER HAMID ALI MIRZA, J. ---These civil petitions for leave to appeal :e directed against an order, dated 22-2-2000 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Miscellaneous Application NO.IJC of -1999 in Civil Revision Nos.411-D and 412-D of -1999 moved by the -Respondents for condonation of delay was allowed subject to payment of Rs.2,000 as costs. We have heard the learned counsel for the -Petitioner and perused the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the -Petitioner is that no medical certificate in respect of the ground for condonation of delay was filed by the -Respondents and further that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable for condonation of delay in filing a civil revision under section 115, C.P.C. The learned Judge in Chambers in the concluding paragraph of the impugned order has observed:-- "I have given due consideration to the valuable…
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