AYUB through L.Rs, and others vs NISAR AHMED and others
This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal and maintained the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts. The core legal question involves the sustainability of concurrent findings of fact regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad under pre-emption law, alongside the issue of limitation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petition was barred by thirty-three days of delay without any formal application for condonation of delay or satisfactory explanation regarding the computation of limitation. Furthermore, the Court held that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts regarding the essential legal requirements of pre-emption—namely Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad—suffered from no legal or factual infirmity warranting interference. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact on matters of pre-emption will not be interfered with in the absence of legal or factual infirmity, and a time-barred petition lacking an application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.
- Whether a civil petition for leave to appeal filed beyond the period of limitation without an application for condonation of delay is maintainable?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of any legal or factual infirmity?
- Does a failure to explain the delay in filing a petition in the absence of a formal application for condonation warrant the dismissal of the petition?
' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 30-11-2006 in Civil Appeal No,5 of 1979 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur, whereby the said appeal was dismissed maintaining the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in the memo. Of petition as well as in the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that 2nd Appellate Court as well as two Courts below have not considered the evidence in proper perspective of law, therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
5. We do not find merit and substance in the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, firstly for the reason that this petition is barred by 33 days as reported by the office. Learned counsel attempted to explain the delay by stating that no date of impugned judgment was mentioned to facilitate computing period of limitation, therefore, there would be no question that the petition was barred by time. On a question whether the judgment was announced or after hearing the judgment was reserved and on a later date it was announced, learned counsel had no answer to give. He was totally helpless and could not show that the petition was within time. Having failed to satisfy the Court on the above questions, we find that this petition is barred by time. No application for condonation of delay has been moved by learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Besides above, it may also be observed that there are concurrent findings of fact with regard to Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad made by the petitioners which have been answered in the affirmative and we do not find any legal or factual infirmity with the said findings, hence no interference is called for.
7. In view of above circumstances, we find no ground to grant leave to appeal in this matter which is declined and the petition is dismissed.
Leave declined.