BHOOP KHAN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND)
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed with a delay of nine days, for which the petitioner sought condonation on the grounds of illness and the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the writ petition. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the medical grounds and circumstances presented by the petitioner constituted sufficient cause to excuse the delay in filing the petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the medical certificate provided was unsatisfactory and designed to cater to special needs, and that the petitioner failed to prove he was sufficiently bed-ridden or incapacitated to prevent him from contacting a lawyer during the claimed period. Consequently, the court held that no sufficient cause existed for condoning the delay. The key principle laid down is that generalized medical certificates of doubtful authenticity, unsupported by proof of complete incapacitation from seeking legal recourse, do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under limitation rules.
- Whether illness of a petitioner constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under limitation laws when the medical certificate is on a printed form and appears unconvincing?
- Does the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of a writ petition justify excusing a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal when the initial filing is already time-barred?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The office note shows that this petition is barred by 9 days. In excuse of the delay it is submitted that though an application for a copy of the judgment was applied for on the same date on which it was announced, namely, on 20-10-1979 and a copy thereof prepared and delivered on 6-11-1979, the petitioner could not take any further steps towards filing the petition for leave to appeal in this Court as he fell ill and recovered only on 4-1-1980. He contacted an Advocate on 5-1-1980 which was the last date for filing the leave petition, however, the petition could not be filed on that date as the certified copy of the writ petition had to be obtained, for which an application was moved on the same date viz. 5-1-1980 and the said copy dilivered to the petitioner on 13-1-1980 whereafter the petition was filed without any further delay on 15-1-1980.
2. ' The illness which prevented the petitioner from moving about from 7-11-1979 to 4-1-1980 is stated to be "Amoelians (sic). Dysentery and Anaemia" and a medical certificate has also been attached in this behalf. This certificate is on a printed form wherein some blank spaces have been left out to indicate the disease, the days of illness etc. And is appeared to be designed in such a way as to cater to the special needs of all those who are interested in obtaining such certificates.
3. ' Be that as it may, we are not satisfied that the petitioner was suffering from such a malady that he was so bed-ridden as to be prevented from being in a position to visit a lawyer for almost two months as claimed.
4. ' We, therefore, do not think that sufficient cause exists for excusing the delay. This petition is, therefore, dismissed as barred by limitation.