Pakistan Case Law
2008 SCMR 54

AZIZ-UR-REHMAN HAMID vs CRESCENT COMMERCIAL BANK

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2008 SCMR 54
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 2813 of 2006 and 6176 of 2005 and
Date2007-01-25
Judge(s)Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Mian Shakirullah Jan and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad
ResultAppeal dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a time-barred appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, delayed by 35 days, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The core legal question is whether the appellant's status as a layman constitutes a sufficient and recognized ground for condoning a delay in filing. The court held that the application for condonation of delay is not maintainable, and furthermore, that being a layman is not a ground recognized under the law to excuse delay. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The key principle laid down is that ignorance of procedural law or the status of being a layman does not furnish a plausible or legally recognized ground for the condonation of delay under limitation laws.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is being a layman a recognized ground for condonation of delay under the law?
  • Can an appeal delayed by 35 days be entertained without a plausible ground for condonation of delay?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
limitationcondonation of delaytime-barred appealsufficient causesupreme court

ORDER

1. This appeal is barred by 35 days: An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay has been moved. Firstly it is to be seen that this application is not maintainable. However, if the same is treated maintainable, even then the ground urged therein seeking condonation of delay is not recognized under the law namely that appellant is a layman, therefore, we are of the opinion that no plausible ground for condonation of the delay of 35 days has been made out. As such the same is dismissed on the ground of limitation.

Cited by 4 cases

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