M. M. K. A. ZAI vs THE COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court and a subsequent order dismissing a review application. The core legal question concerned whether the petition for leave to appeal was barred by limitation and whether sufficient grounds existed for condoning the delay in filing. The Supreme Court held that the review application filed before the High Court was not maintainable and misconceived, and the petitioner was negligent in obtaining a certified copy of the judgment, rendering the petition for leave time-barred without sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that the pursuit of a futile and misconceived review application, coupled with negligence in obtaining certified copies, does not constitute a sufficient ground for condoning delay under limitation principles, and that observations preserving statutory powers of authorities to revise assessments render hypothetical grievances misconceived.
- Whether the pursuit of a misconceived review application constitutes sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Whether negligence in collecting a certified copy of a judgment justifies the dismissal of a time-barred petition?
ORDER
1. ' DORAB PATEL, ACTG. C. J.-The private respondents in this petition for leave are the tenants of a building known as Raja Mansion in Karachi and according to them, the GARY of this property was fixed by the Excise and Taxation Officer on 26-6-1963 at Rs, 49,704. Three years later, on a represent made to the Revisional Authority that no valid order had been passed on 20-6-1963, the revisional authority re-opened the assessm ent of this building and remanded the case to the Excise and Taxation Officer, who on remand, fixed the GARY of Raja Mansion on 11-5-1967 at Rs, 1,45,716. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the private respondents, therefore, they filed a writ petition in the Sind High Court, on the ground that the Revisional Authority had acted illegally in remanding the case without hearing them. The petitioner was not present when the writ petition came up for hearing and it would appear that largely on the basis of a concession made by the Assistant Advocate-General, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of 11-5-1967. The petitioner then sought a review of the High Court's judgment of 30-10-1978, but the review was totally misconceived, therefore, review application was rightly dismissed by the High Court on 27-1- 1979.
2. ' Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition for leave against the High Court's judgment of 3040- 1978 and the order of 27-1-1979 dismissing the review application.
3. We agree with the view of the High Court that the review was no maintainable, therefore, it is clear that the petition for leave is time-barred. Additionally, apart from the question whether the petitioner was entitled t exclude the time in prosecuting his futile and misconceived review application, the petitioner was negligent in collecting a certified copy of the High Court's judgment.
4. Therefore, we are satisfied that the petitioner has not made out any case for condoning delay and the petition merits dismissal on the short ground that it is time-barred.
5. ' However, on our enquiries, we found that Mr. Zai's grievance was that the High Court had set aside the order of 11-5-1967 and restored the order of 20-6-1963, which according to learned counsel, was an illegal order, therefore, his apprehension was that the Excise Authorities would not be able to revise the assessm ent of Raja Mansion, if they so thought fit. Now, in allowing the writ petition, the learned Judges observed; "that nothing hereinabove stated will prevent the authorities concerned to revise the assessm ent, if the law so permits." In view of this observation, Mr. Zai's grievance is misconceived. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.