Pakistan Case Law
1982 SCMR 285

MUHAMMAD SAEED AND Another vs SHAUKAT ALI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1982 SCMR 285
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.W. P. No. 949-R/79 Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1164 of 1980
Date1980-11-29
Judge(s)Karam Elahee Chauhan and Abdul Kadir Shaikh
Authored byKaram Elahee Chauhan
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

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.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • 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?
time-barred petitioncondonation of delaylimitation periodSupreme Court of Pakistan

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

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