MUHAMMAD ARSHAD BUTT vs EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (EDUCATION), DISTRICT GUJRANWALA and another
The petitioner sought review of a judgment dated 6-2-2006 passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, whereby his petition was converted into an appeal and partly accepted by reducing the penalty of stoppage of five increments to one increment for one year. The office reported that the review petition was barred by four days, and the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground of being jobless and unable to contact his counsel. The core legal question was whether the ground urged constituted sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, and whether a review petition could be maintained to re-open the entire case on merits. The Court held that joblessness without supporting documents does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and that the scope of review jurisdiction is very limited and cannot be used to re-litigate a matter on merits. The review petition was accordingly dismissed as being time-barred and devoid of merits.
- Does financial hardship or being jobless constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- What is the scope of review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a concluded matter?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- The petitioner, through the present petition, seeks review of the judgment, dated 6-2-2006, whereby, this Court converted petitioner's petition (C.P. No,744/L of 2005) into appeal and passed the following orders:-- "3. In view of what has been stated above this petition is converted into appeal and partly accepted and the stoppage of 5 increments reduced to one increment just for one year. These are the reasons of our short order, dated 6-2-2006 which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference."
2. Office has reported that the petition is barred by 4 days. The petitioner has filed an application (C.M.A. No,1826/L of 2006) for condonation of delay on the ground that "he was jobless and thus, was not in a position to contact his counsel for preparation and filing of the review petition".
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the available record. The only ground agitated in the afore-noted application, as canvassed by learned counsel, to our mind does not constitute "sufficient cause", within the parameters of section 5 of the Limitation Act, warranting condonation of delay. The petitioner has vaguely asserted that he could not file review petition in time without any supporting document. The petition is clearly barred by time and we are not persuaded to condone the delay.
4. Even if we condone the delay, the petitioner has no case on merits either. The contentions raised by the learned counsel were dealt with and decided by this Court. The petitioner has already got the desired relief. He cannot be allowed to reopen the entire case under the garb of review petition.
It is well-settled that the scope of review jurisdiction is very limited.
5. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the review petition is time-barred and devoid of merits as well, thus, stands dismissed on both the counts and review is declined.