Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 1262 2004 SLD 1262 2004 SCMR 1630
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1321/L of 2003, decision dated: 6-07-2004.(Oil appeal from judgment, dated 10-4-2003, passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, in Civil Revision No.357-D of 1992/BWP)
SEED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JJ
Rana Maqbool Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent

HAJI AHMED and others

VS

NOOR MUHAMMAD

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---S. 115---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--- Revision--¬Dismissed as time-barred---Intentional delay on the part of the petitioners to approaching the High Court for relief---High Court, after carefully examining/analyzing the record found the revision petition to be hopelessly time-barred and on the point of limitation, revision was dismissed---Judgment of the High Court being entirely in consonance with the law, did not call for any interference by the Supreme Court--¬Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. JUDGMENT SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.------Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 10-4-2003, delivered in Civil Revision No.357 of 1992/BWP. 2. The facts of this case are already elaborately mentioned in the impugned judgment and the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned High Court oil the point of limitation. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. 3. Rana Maqbool Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia, contended that the delay in filing of the revision petition was not intentional and was beyond the control of the petitioners and that the learned High Court should have condoned the delay and decided the revision, petition on merits. 4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have carefully gone through the record. The material available, on record does not support the contentions, of the learned counsel. There was intentional delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching the High Court for relief. 5. The learned Single Judge in Chambers of the High Court, after carefully examining/analyzing the record found the revision petition to be hopelessly time-barred and on the point of limitation it was dismissed. It would be advantageous to refer here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-- "(6) According to the contents of the application for condonation of delay, the petitioners had approaches: Malik Ghulam Haider, Advocate, oil 15-9-1992 and his unfortunate death came to…
🔒
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