MUHAMMAD SAEED AND Another vs SHAUKAT ALI
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition filed against an order of the High Court dated 2-4-1980 passed in Writ Petition No. 949-R/79, which had remanded a case for fresh decision. The primary legal question addressed by the court is whether the petition, having been filed 36 days beyond the period of limitation, can be entertained after condoning the delay based on the time spent obtaining copies and the grounds presented in the application. The Supreme Court held that the petition is barred by time, observing that even if the entire time spent in obtaining the relevant copies is excluded, the petition remains time-barred, and the application fails to satisfactorily explain each day of the delay as required by law. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that an applicant seeking condonation of delay must satisfactorily explain each and every day of the delay beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
- Whether a petition filed beyond the period of limitation can be entertained without explaining each day of the delay?
- Does the time spent in obtaining relevant copies automatically extend the period of limitation if the petition remains barred even after excluding such time?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This is a petition against an order dated 2-4-1980, whereby the High Court accepted. Writ Petition No. 949-R/79 and remanded the case for fresh decision. The petition is barred by 36 days. Learned counsel argued that some time was spent in obtaining the relevant copies and if the same is taken into account, the petition would be in time. The contention has no merit, because if full time spent in obtaining the relevant copy or copies is allowed even then the petition will remain time barred. Learned counsel filed an application for condonation of delay. We have gone through the same. In our opinion it does not make out and case for condonation of delay inasmuch as it does not satisfactorily explain, as the law is, each day of limitation.
2. The result is that this petition is dismissed as time-barred.
Cited by 7 cases
- ZAMAN Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN 2017 YLRN 353
- HABIBULLAH vs MEHAR through L.Rs. and 2 otherss 2014 YLR 128
- KAZIM IMAM JAN vs MUHAMMAD JAWAID and 4 others 2003 CLC 200
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General, Civic Centre, GulshaneIqbal, Karachi vs Mst. UNSIAT BEGUM and others 1999 YLR 1160
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Collector, District Attock And 4 Others vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ 1994 CLC 666
- GUL MUHAMMAD SHAH and another vs SHAHAK DAD 1993 CLC 1547
- MUHAMMAD BUX vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 193