MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P.
This matter concerns a petition for review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 9th April 1978. The core legal question was whether the delay of 16 days in re-filing the review petition, following the initial return of the petition for lack of a Senior Advocate's signature, could be condoned based on the petitioner's plea of ignorance regarding the procedural requirements of the Court's rules. The Supreme Court held that the review petition was incompetent upon its initial filing because it lacked the mandatory signature of a Senior Advocate as required by the Rules of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court determined that the subsequent re-filing of the petition was time-barred by 16 days, and the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that ignorance of procedural rules, specifically the requirement for a Senior Advocate's signature on a review petition, does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay in filing.
- Does ignorance of procedural rules regarding the signing of a review petition constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
- Is a review petition filed without the signature of a Senior Advocate competent under the Rules of the Supreme Court?
- Rule 3 of Order XXVI, Rules of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
ORDER
1. ' G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.--This petition filed by Muhammad Aslam Khan seeks the review of the judgment of this Court, dated 9th April, 1978. But according to the report of the Office it is barred by 16 days. The record would show that this petition was filed in the Registry of this Court on 31st May, 1978 but it was returned to the learned. A. O. R. For want of signatures of the Senior Advocate, as required by rule 3 of Order XXVI of the Rules of this Court. After complying with the said objection, the petition was re-filed in the Registry on 17th June, 1978 but on that date it had already become barred by 16 days.
2. ' In order to seek the condonation of the delay in question, in para. 3 of the application filed in that behalf it has been alleged that "at the time of the filing of the Review Petition the petitioner was not aware of the requirement of the Rule that memo. Of the Review Petition shall also be signed by the Senior Advocate who had issued the fitness certificate". In other words what has been pleaded in the said para. Is the ignorance of the requirement of Rule 3 of Order XXVI of the Rules of this Court, which is to the following effect :- "3. No such application shall be entertained unless it is signed by a Senior Advocate who, in this behalf, shall not be governed by the restrictions contained in clause (2) of the First Schedule to these rules."
3. It would thus be seen that by the peremptory language employed in the said rule, the review petition presented in this Court, without the signatures' of the Senior counsel was incompetent. Its resubmission in the Registry A of the Court, however, on 17th June, 1978 was out of time by 16 days for which no satisfactory explanation had been furnished by the petitioner.
4. ' This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.