Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM vs Qazi JAMILUDDIN AND 4 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a judgment of the High Court delivered on 17th January, 1974. The core legal question was whether the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the writ petition could be excluded for the purpose of limitation, in addition to the time spent obtaining a copy of the impugned judgment, to condone a significant delay of 96 days in filing the petition. The Supreme Court held that there is no legal basis to tag on the time taken in the preparation of a copy of the writ petition with the time spent on the impugned judgment for limitation purposes. Consequently, no sufficient ground for condonation of delay was made out, and the petition was dismissed as barred by time.
- Whether the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the writ petition can be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Can the time taken in preparing a copy of a writ petition be tagged onto the time spent in preparing a copy of the impugned judgment?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The office note shows that the petition is barred by 96 days. The judgment of the High Court was delivered on 17th January, 1974. The application for grant of copy was submitted on 11th March, 1974 and the copy was ready for delivery on 23rd April, 1974. Thus 44 days we're taken in the preparation of the copy. However, the petition for leave to appeal was not filed in this Court until 5th August, 1974, 200 days after the passing of the judgment by the High Court. The petition, after deducting 60 days, within which it can be lodged, and 44 days spent in the preparation of the copy, is out of time by 96 days.
2. The learned counsel, in excuse of the delay has submitted that an application for obtaining a certified copy of the Writ Petition was submitted on 26th April, 1974, before the expiry of limitation for filing the petition for leave to appeal. The same was supplied on 3rd August, 1974 (Saturday) when the Registry was closed and the petition was filed on the next working day, viz. 5th August, 1974. According to the learned counsel the days spent in obtaining the certified copy of the Writ Petition are also liable to be excluded.
3. We find no force in this contention. The learned counsel was unable to show any law in support of his submission that the time taken in the preparation of the copy of the Writ Petition can be tagged on, With, the time spent in the preparation of the copy of the impugned judg--ment- No ground for condonation of delay is, therefore, made out.
4. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as barred by time.