GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. and others vs Qazi MOGHAL BAZ
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of N.-W.F.P. against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Civil Revision as time-barred. The respondent had originally instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,08,000 along with interest and escalation charges. While the trial court initially dismissed the suit, the Additional District Judge subsequently allowed the respondent's appeal. The petitioner challenged this appellate decision in the High Court, but that court dismissed the revision petition due to the delay in filing. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the High Court failed to properly consider their application for condonation of delay and that such delay should have been excused in the interest of justice. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and that the reasons provided in the application for condonation were insufficient. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court's dismissal of the revision petition was legally sound, and therefore, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does an application for condonation of delay require a satisfactory explanation to be granted?
- Is a High Court's dismissal of a civil revision petition as time-barred sustainable if the reasons for delay are inadequate?
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, P.W.D. (B&R), Peshawar, and others, petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 26-2-2007 passed by learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dismissing Civil Revision No,482 of 2003 as time-barred.
2. Plaintiff/respondent Qazi Mughal Baz instituted suit for recovery of Rs,2,08,000 along with interest since 1-7-1976 till the date of the actual payment and escalation amount. The suit was resisted and claim of plaintiff/respondent was denied. After framing issues and recording the evidence of the parties, learned trial Court dismissed suit vide judgment and decree, dated 28-11-1991. An appeal was preferred thereagainst which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar vide judgment, dated 31-7-2002. The civil revision filed against said judgment was dismissed by learned High Court through the judgment impugned herein, as stated and mentioned above.
3. Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Government, contended, inter alia, that the judgment and decree passed by learned High Court as well as learned Additional District Judge are contrary to law, facts and material on the record; that learned High Court did not consider application for condonation of delay in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and that delay should have been condoned in the interest of justice.
4. Mr. Qazi Abdul Basit, learned Advocate, representing the respondent, repudiated the arguments of petitioner's learned counsel and fully supported the impugned judgment.
5. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties with reference to the material on file, we find that delay in this case has not been satisfactorily explained and the civil revision has been dismissed as time-barred for reasons not open to legitimate exception. A The reasons numerated in the application hardly provide any sound ground for condonation of delay.
The petition is bereft of merit. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.