Pakistan Case Law
1982 SCMR 469(1)

FAZAL ELAHI AND Others vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1982 SCMR 469(1)
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 764 of 1975
Date1981-02-01
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Aslam Riaz Hussain, Karam Elahi Chauhan
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was submitted with a delay of 17 days. The petitioners sought condonation of this delay, arguing that the time spent pursuing a certificate of fitness for appeal in the High Court should be excluded from the limitation period, asserting that they acted in a bona fide manner. The Supreme Court examined the application for condonation and determined that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their pursuit of the remedy in the High Court was conducted in good faith or in a bona fide manner. Consequently, the Court held that the grounds provided were insufficient to justify an extension of the limitation period. The petition was dismissed as time-barred, establishing the principle that a mere assertion of pursuing other remedies is insufficient for condonation of delay without a clear showing of good faith.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is the time spent pursuing a certificate of fitness for appeal in the High Court automatically excluded from the limitation period for filing a petition in the Supreme Court?
  • Does a mere assertion of pursuing a remedy in another forum satisfy the requirement of good faith for the purpose of condoning a delay in filing?
condonation of delaylimitation periodtime-barred petitionbona fideleave to appeal

ORDER

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This petition is barred by 17 days. The pet--itioners had filed an application for condo nation of delay on the ground that they had been pursuing remedy in the High Court for grant of a certificate of for appeal to this Court, in a bona fide manner, therefore, the time consumed fitness therein should be allowed and the period of limitation may be extended. We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the condo nation application. In our opinion the grounds advanced is not sufficient by itself to grant extension of limitation, inasmuch as it has not been shown that the remedy aforesaid was pursued in good faith or bona fide manner.

2. The result is that this petition is dismissed as-time-barred.

Cited by 1 case

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