NAZAR DIN AND Others vs The SECRETARY, RURAL WITH POWERS OF THE S. C
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The primary legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners had provided a sufficient and credible explanation to justify the condonation of a one-day delay in filing the petition. The petitioners contended that the delay was caused by the illness of the first petitioner, supporting this claim with an undated medical certificate issued by a Women Medical Officer. Upon examination, the Court found the medical certificate unreliable and noted inconsistencies in the timeline provided by the petitioners regarding the petitioner's ability to travel and file the petition in Lahore immediately following the alleged period of bed rest. Consequently, the Court held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The Court affirmed the principle that where a valuable right has accrued to the opposing party, a delay in filing legal proceedings cannot be condoned without a robust and credible justification. Finding no such justification, the petition was dismissed as time-barred.
- Can a delay in filing a petition be condoned based on an undated and unverified medical certificate?
- Does the accrual of a valuable right in favor of the respondent influence the court's discretion to condone a delay in filing?
- Is a one-day delay in filing a petition automatically excusable without a satisfactory explanation?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 175-R. 1981 passed on 20-3-1982.
2. The petition is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the delay is only of one day and an application has been submitted praying for condonation of the said delay.
3. The main reason given in excuse of the delay is that the petitioners came to know about the announcement of the judgment after a considerable time from the date of its announcement.
4. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 came to Lahore to obtain a copy of the judgment and returned home to arrange for the expenses for filing this petition and the fee of the counsel, etc. However, he fell ill on 20-9-1981 and remained confined to bed also on 21-9-1981. The petition was filed on 22-9-1981. In support of this assertion a medical certificate has also been attached. This was issued by the Women Medical Officer, Tehsil Headquarter, Narowal and, is undated. It appears to be a standard pro forma containing some blanks to enable the mention of the name of the patient; the disease of which he has been suffering and the period for which complete rest was advised. The perusal of the medical certificate does not inspire any confidence. Moreover, according to it he was advised complete rest for 20th and 21st September, 1981. It is difficult to believe that if he was resting even on the 21st September, 1981, in his village in Tehsil Narowal how he could complete all the formalities and file this petition at Lahore on 22-9-1982.
5. We, therefore, do not think the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Even though, the delay is only of cite day but since a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondents (Non. 3 to 5) and no sufficient can for condonation of this delay has been established, this petition roust fail o the ground of limitation.
6. This petition is, therefore, dismissed as barred by-time.
Cited by 5 cases
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD 2010 YLR 2710
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Collector, District Attock And 4 Others vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ 1994 CLC 666
- PROVINCE OF SIND Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAB 1989 CLC 2110
- Haji MUHAMMAD MOOSA And ANOTHER vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN 1986 CLC 2951
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ And Others vs SHAH MUHAMMAD And Other 1985 SCMR 799