Pakistan Case Law
1980 SCMR 137

ABDUR REHMAN BUTT vs Mst. AISHA BIBI ETC.

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1980 SCMR 137
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 724 of 1974
Date1979-04-17
Judge(s)Muhammad Akram and Karam Elahee Chauhan
Authored byMuhammad Akram
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition concerning the disposal of a property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petition was barred by 149 days, and the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay supported by a medical certificate stating he suffered from rheumatoid arthritis. The core legal question was whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the inordinate delay in filing the petition. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his illness rendered him unable to move about or impart necessary instructions for filing the petition within the period of limitation. Consequently, the Court found no sufficient cause for condoning the delay and dismissed the petition as time-barred, affirming the principle that medical grounds alone, without proof of incapacitation from filing, do not warrant the condonation of delay.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether illness supported by a medical certificate constitutes sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing a petition for special leave?
  • Is a petitioner required to prove that illness incapacitated them from giving instructions in order to condone delay?
  • Can delay in re-filing a petition be condoned without explaining the period of limitation elapsed after the expiry date?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
special leave to appealcondonation of delaysufficient causelimitation periodtime-barred petitionmedical certificate

1. ' MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This is a petition for special leave from the judgment dated 5th of February 1974, whereby a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore dismissed the writ petition No, 117-R of 1967 filed by the petitioner against the respondents herein concerning the disposal of shop No, 11/597 situated on Iqbal Road, Sialkot, under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. It is barred by 149 days and is accompanied by an application made under rule 6 of Order 49 of the Supreme Court Rules for condonation of the delay. It appears from the record that at first this petition was filed in this Court on the 22nd of June, 1974 but without a certified copy of the grounds of the writ petition before the High Court. It was therefore, returned to the petitioner as incomplete on the same day. He however, re-filed the same in this Court alongwith a certified copy thereof only on the 2nd of September 1974.

2. ' The endorsement on the certified copy of the writ petition in the High Court shows that the petitioner had applied for it only after the period of limitation had already expired and that it was made ready for delivery on the 31st of August 1974.. In his application for condonation of delay in filing the petition for special leave the petitioner has averred that he fell ill and remained under the treatment of Dr. Muhammad Idris Qureshi of Sialkot from 2nd of February, 1974 to 15th of April, 1974 and again from 5th of May, 1974 to 18th of June, .1974 and thereafter he filed the copy without any loss of time in this Court. This application was accompanied by a medical certificate dated 18th of June, 1974 issued by Dr. Muhammad Idris Qureshi, M. B., B. S. (Pb) of Sialkot City, a private practitioner, to the effect that the petitioner remained under his treatment from 2nd of February, 1974 to 15th of April, 1974 and from the 15th of May, 1974 till the date of the issuance of the certificate and that he was suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and was advised complete rest and treatment during this period. But neither in the application of the petitioner nor even in the affidavit it was remotely suggested that thereby he was unable to move about and was unable to impart the necessary instructions for filing the petition for special leave within time. We are therefore, not persuaded to hold that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner in his failure to file the petition for special leave within time and the delay is not liable to be condoned. This petition is therefore, dismissed as time barred .

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