MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 4 Others vs SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES AND 2 Other
This petition challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal as time-barred. The petitioners had filed the appeal with significant delay, attributing it to misinformation provided by their counsel's clerk, who allegedly claimed the initial writ petition had been admitted for hearing. The High Court refused to condone the delay, noting the absence of a supporting affidavit from the clerk and the fact that the original writ petition was dismissed in the presence of the petitioners' counsel. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's discretionary refusal to condone the delay was justified. The Court held that the explanation provided was insufficient, particularly given that the counsel was present when the writ petition was originally dismissed. The Court affirmed that misinformation or failure of communication between a counsel, their clerk, and the client does not automatically constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court found the High Court's exercise of discretion unexceptionable and dismissed the petition, upholding the principle that procedural negligence by a legal representative does not warrant the condonation of substantial delay.
- Whether misinformation provided by a counsel's clerk to a client constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Is the refusal of a High Court to condone delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal subject to interference if the explanation offered is unsubstantiated?
- Does the presence of a counsel at the time of an order's pronouncement preclude a party from claiming ignorance of that order to justify a delay in filing an appeal?
1. ORDER.
2. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Judgment dated 17-3-1977 of the Lahore High Court whereby a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed as time barred, has been brought under challenge; through thispetition.
3. A writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in limine on 19-7- 1965, in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners. A belated Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 9-1-1967. In the application for condonation of delay, it was everred from the petitioners side that the clerk of the learned counsel who had appeared in the High Court, had wrongly informed his clients that the writ petition had been admitted to hearing. Not only this, he lad also recovered certain amount from them with regard to the further processing of the case. It was on account of this wrong information. It was further asserted, that the delay took place in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. A learned Division Bench of the High Court, after taking note of this, explanation, observed: There is no supporting affidavit of the clerk of the counsel explaining any mis--apprehension on the part of the clerk concerned about the order passed and communication made to the appellant. We find that the explanation to offered by the appellant is of no avail and there is no question of condoning the delay in his favour on the grounds stated".
4. Learned counsel admits that the information said to have been conveyed to the writ petitioner by the clerk (to say the least) was wrong. He has further stated that the clerk has since died. It appears from the grounds of the petition that the clerk was alive when the Letters Patent Appeal was filed. One reason for not filing his affidavit with the application for condonation of delay could be that he might not have owned the false statement alleged to have been made by him to the petitioner. So that as it may, the fact remains that the writ petition was dismissed in presence of the learn counsel for the writ petitioner. If he himself failed to convey correct information to his client, or for that matter his check conveyed fats information that by itself, in the circumstances of the case, was not sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The refuse to condone delay in the, discretionary exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court is unexceptionable. No justification has been made out for interference. The petition is dismissed
Cited by 1 case
- Mubarak Masih vs Muhammad Yaqoob & others 2019 CLC 321, 2018 SHC 667