MUHAMMAD AQEEL AHMAD SIDDIQI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed an Intra Court Appeal, thereby upholding a previous order that dismissed a constitutional petition. The petition before the Supreme Court was significantly delayed, being filed 38 days late against the Division Bench order and 261 days late against the Single Judge order. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, citing a medical condition supported by a certificate. The Supreme Court examined the application and found it insufficient. The Court held that the medical certificate did not justify the delay because evidence on record demonstrated that the petitioner was actively attending to the case and obtaining certified copies during the period of alleged illness. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide an explanation for the delay covering each day of the limitation period. Consequently, the Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the petition as time-barred, affirming the principle that a party seeking condonation must explain each day of the delay.
- Is a medical certificate sufficient to condone a significant delay in filing an appeal if the record shows the petitioner was otherwise active in the case?
- Does the law require an applicant seeking condonation of delay to explain each day of the limitation period?
- Can a petition be dismissed as time-barred if the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the entire duration of the delay?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order dated 23-6-1977, whereby an Intra Court Appeal/LPA was dismissed by the Nigh Court, maintaining the order of the learned Single Judge of that Court dated 12-11-1976, whereby a constitutional petition being W. P. No. 673/66 was dismissed.
2. The appeal is barred by 38 days against the order of the learned Division Bench and 261 days against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. There is an application for condonation of delay. We have heard the learned counsel and also gone through the aforesaid application which in our opinion makes out no case for condonation of delay. A plea has been taken that the petitioner remained confined to bed for some time due to an accident and a medical certificate has been attached in support of this averment. The said certificate, in our opinion, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner, because, evidence is available on the record in the form of obtaining certified copies of various documents etc, that despite the aforesaid illness the petitioner was attending to the case, and there is no explanation as to why only institution of this petition was delayed for all the period involved in this case, and particularly the delay- even after obtaining the relevant certified copies, still remained unexplained. In short the application filed does not, as the law requires, cover or explaineach day of limitation.
3. The result is that the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the petition is dismissed as time-barred.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs SECRETARY/ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF 1994 PLC (C.S.) 823