MESSRS FOUR FRIENDS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LAHORE vs MESSRS DOMEZ
This civil review petition arises from an order dismissing Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1979 on 9-4-1980. The petitioner sought a review and filed an application for condonation of a 45-day delay in filing the petition, claiming an apprehension that the appeal was fixed for re-arguments because it had only been partly heard when court time ended. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient and proper cause for condoning the delay, as there was no explanation for the period between obtaining a copy of the order on 24-5-1980 and the filing of the petition on 23-6-1980. The core legal principle established is that an applicant seeking condonation of delay must account for each and every day of delay after acquiring knowledge of the disposal of the matter and the expiration of the limitation period. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed as time-barred.
- Whether a petitioner seeking condonation of delay must account for each and every day after the expiry of the limitation period?
- Is an apprehension that an appeal was fixed for re-arguments sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a review petition?
- What is the consequence of failing to provide a proper explanation for the delay between obtaining a copy of the judgment and filing a review petition?
ORDER
1. M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-The petitioner by this petition seeks review of the order of this Court dated 9-4- 1980, whereby his Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1979 had been dismissed as being without merit. The petition, having been filed on 23-6-1980, is some 45 days beyond the limitation period. The petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay. His case is that the appeal had only partly been argued on 9-4-1980 when the Court time had been over and that no judgment bad been announced, nor was also some of the record before the Court. He had, therefore, gone awe under 'the genuine apprehension that the appeal was fixed for re-arguments".
2. However, as appears from the recitals in his application, he had come to know on 23-5-1980 of the disposal of the appeal and had rushed to Rawalpindi where he had obtained copy on 24-5-1980, but there is no explanation for the delay made thereafter until 23-6-1980 when the petition was actually moved. Since be is to account for the delay of each and every day after he had come to know of the disposal of his appeal and after the period of limitation had been over, his application fails to provide sufficient and proper cause for condoning the delay. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed as time---barred. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.