Pakistan Case Law
1980 SCMR 561(1)

SAHIB KHAN AND OTHERS vs GHULAM DASTGIR AND OTHERS

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1980 SCMR 561(1)
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 910 of 1974
Date1979-11-27
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, Muhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 30-11-1973 in a land settlement case, which petition is barred by 189 days. The core legal question is whether the explanation offered by the petitioners regarding illness, inability to contact a legal adviser, and a mistaken impression about the filing of petitions during the Supreme Court summer vacation constitutes sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. The court holds that the explanation provided by the petitioners does not amount to a sufficient cause and ground for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that vague and unsupported assertions of illness and misconceptions regarding court vacations do not furnish sufficient ground to excuse a substantial period of delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether illness combined with a mistaken impression about court vacations constitutes sufficient cause for condoning a delay of 189 days?
  • Can vague assertions of being unable to contact a legal adviser justify the condonation of delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
condonation of delaytime barred petitionleave to appealsufficient causelimitation

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.- Leave to appeal from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 30-11-1973, in a land settlement case, has been sought through this petition. It is barred by 189 days.

2. The explanation] offered by the petitioners in the application for condonation of delay reads] A as follows :- "that after obtaining the required copies the petitioner fell ill and could not contact any legal adviser. In the meantime the Supreme Court was closed for summer vacations and the petitioner was under the impression that petitions are not filed during summer vacation."

3. ' We do not accept this, by itself, as sufficient cause and ground for condonation of delay. This petition is dismissed as time barred.

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