MUNIR HUSSAIN vs CHANGAZ KHAN and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the dismissal of an application for the restoration of a Regular Second Appeal (RSA) that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner sought restoration after a delay of one year and ten months, filing an accompanying application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The core legal question was whether such a significant delay, lacking a day-to-day explanation or a plausible ground for the delay, warrants judicial condonation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was admittedly negligent and indolent in prosecuting the appeal and failed to provide the necessary particulars to justify the delay. The Court affirmed that while technicalities should not hinder justice, gross negligence and unexplained delay create vested rights in the opposite party that cannot be lightly disturbed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide specific, day-to-day justification, and that unexplained, prolonged indolence precludes the exercise of judicial discretion in their favor.
- Can an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution be allowed if filed with a significant, unexplained delay?
- Is a party required to provide a day-to-day explanation for delay when seeking condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does unexplained indolence in prosecuting an appeal create a vested right in the opposite party that prevents the condonation of delay?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---Seeking leave against the impugned judgment dated 15-4-2008 dismissing petitioner's application for restoration of his R.S.A. No, 27 of 1993 dismissed for non- prosecution, the following facts were admitted by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that;
(i) RSA No, 27 of 1993 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 22-6-2006.
(ii) Application for restoration thereto was made after the period of limitation on 12-4-2008 with a delay of about one year and ten months.
(iii) Application for restoration was accompanied with an application for the condontion of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act wherein date and day-wise explanation for the delay was not particularized.
2. Learned Advocate Supreme Court, however, endeavoured to strenuously argue that the limitation as well as the condonation are matters of technicalities which should be disregarded by the Courts while administering justice. He has referred to the case of "Anwar Khan v. Fazal Manan"
(2010 SCM R 973).
3. Having heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court, we do not subscribe to his view. The above judgment does not apply to IB the facts of the present case where the petitioner had been rr admittedly negligent and indolent in prosecuting his second appeal, filing of the application for restoration and failing to properly explain his delay. The petitioner also failed to particularize his application to seek condonation of delay. He neither raised any plausible ground nor did he disclose the date and day of his knowledge of the dismissal of the RSA. C Such an indolence cultivates a right in the opposite party which, as repeatedly held by this Court, should not be lightly dislocated to maintain judicial balance.
4 In view thereof, this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Siddique vs Bagh Ali and two others 2022 LHC 5326
- Mahmoodi Begum and others vs Mohammad Eisa and others 2023 MLD 739