MEHRAJ DIN AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L) AND Other
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court. The primary legal question addressed by the Court was whether the petitioners had provided sufficient grounds to justify the condonation of a significant delay of 206 days in filing the petition against the High Court's main order dated 18-3-1976. While the petitioners challenged the review order dated 23-9-1979, they conceded that their real grievance lay with the main order. The Court examined the explanation offered for the delay and found it unsatisfactory. The Court held that it was implausible that the petitioners were unaware of the long-standing litigation conducted by their predecessor-in-interest, noting that due diligence would have revealed the existence of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision to dismiss the review petition on the grounds of limitation. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory and credible explanation, and ignorance of ongoing litigation involving a predecessor-in-interest does not constitute a valid ground for condonation when due diligence could have uncovered the facts.
- Does ignorance of litigation conducted by a predecessor-in-interest constitute a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay?
- Can a petition be entertained when the primary order challenged is significantly time-barred and no satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided?
- Is a review petition maintainable if the explanation for the delay in filing is found to be unsatisfactory by the court?
ORDER
1. NASM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is in time so far as the order dated 23-9-1979 passed in review is concerned, but is barred by 206 days insofar as the main order dated 18-3-1976 passed by the High Court is concerned.
2. Mr. A. R. Shaukat concedes that he is unable to challenge the correctness of the order dated 23-9- 1976 passed on merits, and that ;t is the main order passed by the High Court or merits dated 18-3- 1976 with which he is really aggrieved. However, it is obvious that before he can challenge the said order, he has to cross the bar of limitation.
3. We are not satisfied with this explanation. It is difficult to accept that the petitioners were not aware of the litigation which their predecessor---in-interest was conducting for the past several years with the respondents and that in any case they could have, with due diligence, discovered the factum of this litigation. We also observe that the review petition was dismissed by the High Court, inter alia, on the ground of being barred by time where the same explanation as offered to us was given. We agree with the High Court that the excuse for condonation of delay was not satisfactory and could not, therefore, be accepted. No ground for condonation of delay is made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed as barred by time. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.