MRs, PARVEEN ASIF vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. and others
This matter arises from a petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was found to be barred by limitation by five days. The core legal question considered by the court was whether sufficient cause and satisfactory explanation had been furnished to warrant the condonation of delay in filing the petition. The court held that the application seeking condonation of delay failed to demonstrate complete disability of the petitioner or sufficient cause for the entire duration of the delay, particularly noting that the petitioner was capable of prosecuting her remedies through counsel. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the prayer for enlargement of time and dismissed the petition as barred by time. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory and continuous account of sufficient cause preventing timely filing, rather than general pleas of disability.
- Whether general accounts of disability without showing complete prevention from communicating with counsel constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Is a petition liable to be dismissed when it fails to account for the entire period of delay beyond the prescribed limitation time?
ORDER
1. ' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- At the very outset, petition is barred by five days. Application seeking condonation of delay, on the face of it, gives general account of disability of the petitioner without showing that she was completely disabled and prevented from communicating with her Advocate-on-Record or Advocate Supreme Court. Learned counsel says that Rizwan Asif son of the petitioner was suffering from hypertension and depression and advised one month rest with effect from 16-9-2005 to 16-10-2005. Petition was, however, filed in the office of this Court on 30-11-2005 without accounting for the subsequent period. If the petitioner could prosecute her remedy before the High Court through a counsel while sitting at home, she could challenge the impugned order within time through a counsel. No satisfactory account for the delay has been furnished, muchless a sufficient cause for extension of time. Consequently, prayer for enlargement of time is declined and as barred by time.