MEHR DIN vs GHULAM AKBAR AND 2 Other
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was challenged on the grounds of being time-barred by 183 days. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, citing advanced age, ill-health, floods in his locality, and detention in jail custody under sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioner established 'sufficient cause' to justify the condonation of such a significant delay. The Supreme Court observed that the application for a certified copy of the impugned High Court judgment was filed well after the expiry of the 60-day limitation period. Furthermore, the court noted that the alleged floods and jail detention occurred after the limitation period had already expired, and the claim of ill-health lacked any corroborating evidence. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The petition was dismissed as time-barred, reinforcing the principle that vague or unsubstantiated claims of hardship do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing legal proceedings.
- Does a claim of ill-health without supporting evidence constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay?
- Can events occurring after the expiration of the limitation period be used to justify the condonation of delay?
- Is a petition filed 183 days beyond the limitation period maintainable without proof of sufficient cause?
- Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 151, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-This petition is time-barred by 183 days. The reason advanced for condonation of the delay is that since the petitioner is an old man, suffering from ill-health, he was not able to apply, in time, for grant of certified copy of the impugned judgment of the High Court.
2. Moreover, he was not able to leave his village due to floods in the area, and was also detained for certain period in Jail custody in a case under sections 107, 151 Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The relevant facts, however, are that it was as late as 14-6-1975, after the expiry of prescribed period of limitation of 60 days, that petitioner made application for grant of certified copy of the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 4-4-1.975. The incident of alleged floods and petitioner---s jail custody pertain to period after the petition had already been rendered as barred by time. The assertion of petitioner's ill-health has no other support beyond his oral word and it Day well be an afterthought.
4. In our opinion, sufficient cause for condonation of the delay has, not beenmade out the petition is therefore dismissed as barred by time.