Pakistan Case Law
2006 SCMR 1458

GHULAM RASOOL and otherss vs AHMAD YAR and otherss

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2006 SCMR 1458
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,2307-L of 2000
Date2005-01-26
Judge(s)Falak Sher and M. Javed Buttar
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the judgment-debtors against the dismissal of their time-barred appeal and the subsequent affirmation of that dismissal by the Lahore High Court in a civil revision. The core legal question considered was whether the failure of a party's counsel to inform them about the decision of the suit constitutes 'sufficient cause' under the law for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that negligence by a litigant or their counsel in pursuing the matter and failing to file an appeal within the prescribed period does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay, particularly where a valuable right has accrued in favor of the decree-holder. The key principle laid down is that litigants must remain vigilant, and lack of communication from counsel does not automatically warrant the tolling of limitation periods to excuse appellate delays.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the failure of a counsel to inform a client regarding the decision of a suit constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
  • Whether negligence in defending a suit and failing to file an appeal within time warrants the condonation of delay?
  • Can a time-barred appeal be entertained when a valuable right has already accrued to the decree-holder?
limitationcondonation of delaysufficient causejudgment-debtorcivil revisionleave to appeal

ORDER

' Petitioners being judgment-debtors of the witching mentioned suit having been decreed in favor of the respondents, preferred time-barred appeal which was dismissed by an Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 22-4-2000 whose findings were affirmed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court turning down petitioners' revision (Civil Revision No,1411 of 2000) vide the impugned order dated 19-6-2000 opining as under:- "I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. The petitioners had appointed Ali Sher to defend the suit with their own free-will and they should have been vigilant to defend the suit. Furthermore, even if the counsel of the petitioners who had been appearing on their behalf had not informed the petitioner/ defendants regarding decision of the suit; under the law it is not sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as a valuable right has accrued to the plaintiff/ decree-holder as the petitioners did not file the appeal well within time. The petitioners have failed to show the "sufficient cause" for not filing the appeal well within time; they have been A negligent in defending the suit, hence, the lower Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioners being barred by time."

' Have recourse to the captioned petition for leave to appeal, wherein the learned counsel despite the query could not dislodge the reasons recorded.

2. Resultantly, the same being devoid of any substance fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave declined.

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.