Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs UNITED BANK LIMITED
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a First Appeal Against Order (F.A.O.) on the ground of being hopelessly time-barred. The dispute arose from a recovery suit decreed by the Banking Court in favor of the respondent bank. During execution proceedings, the petitioner filed an objection petition, which was dismissed on 10-09-1999. Instead of filing an appeal immediately, the petitioner subsequently filed a miscellaneous application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was also dismissed. The petitioner applied for a certified copy only on 08-02-2000 and subsequently filed an appeal on 17-02-2000 against the original dismissal order. The High Court dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997. Upholding the decision, the Supreme Court held that the appeal was grossly delayed without sufficient cause, affirming that no party can benefit from their own negligence. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether an appeal filed well after the prescribed statutory period under Section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 can be condoned without sufficient cause?
- Does pursuing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend or toll the period of limitation for appealing the primary dismissal order?
- Can a litigant benefit from their own delay and negligence in applying for certified copies when seeking condonation of limitation?
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 21, Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 22-2-2000 whereby F.A.O. No,39 of 2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore being hopelessly time-barred.
2. Facts briefly are that a recovery suit was filed by the respondent-Bank against Messrs Sheikh Carpet Pvt. Ltd. Which was decreed by the Judge Banking Court No,4, Lahore vide his judgment, dated 25-11-1998. The Bank filed execution application and the present petitioner filed objection petition before the learned Banking Court. The said objection petition was dismissed vide order dated 10-9-1999 being frivolous and unconvincing. Thereafter, the petitioner remained dormant and moved a miscellaneous application under section 151, C.P.C. Before the Banking Court for the deletion of the property from the execution proceedings. The said application was dismissed on 2- 2-2000. Again the petitioner went into slumber and filed appeal against the order, dated 10-9-1999 on 17-2-2000. This appeal is certainly time-barred as the order impugned was passed on 10-9- 1999 whereas certified copy thereof was obtained on 8-2-2000. The learned Division Bench while dismissing the appeal has given cogent reasons which are in the following terms: ---- "(4) We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the appellant/applicant and perused the record ourselves. It is admitted fact that the objection petition was dismissed vide order, dated 10-9-1999. The appellant-applicant filed application for obtaining certified copy of the order, dated 10-9-1999 on 8-2-2000 after a prescribed period for filing appeal under section 21 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advance, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The appeal is highly time-barred and the learned counsel of the applicant-appellant failed to point out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is settled proposition of law that nobody should be allowed to get the benefit of his own mis-deed/negligence."
3. The learned counsel has not been able to show any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling interference by this Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.