RAFIQ AHMAD vs GHULAM RASOOL AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the dismissal of the petitioner's civil appeal by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, on the ground of being time-barred, which decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court in civil revision and review proceedings. The core legal question is whether the petitioner's appeal before the District Court was barred by limitation and whether sufficient cause existed for the condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly found the appeal time-barred as the petitioner failed to account for the delay of each and every day after obtaining the certified copy, having offered no plausible explanation for the subsequent 11-day delay in filing the appeal. The key principle laid down is that when an appeal is barred by limitation, the appellant must satisfactorily account for the delay of each and every day, and the failure to establish sufficient cause precludes the condonation of delay.
- Whether an appellant must account for the delay of each and every day when filing a time-barred appeal?
- Does failure to provide a plausible explanation for a delayed filing preclude the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the lack of sufficient cause for delay?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
M. S. H. QURESH1, J.-The question raised in this petition for grant to leave is whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the District,., Court against the decree of dismissal of his suit was not time- barred.---: The appellate Court of the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, had dismissed the appeal holding the same to be time-barred. The petitioner took the matter to the High Court in Civil Revision No. 1369/13 of 1981 and when the same failed, he moved a review application but that too was dismiss--ed on 17-11-1981.
2. The decree dismissing the petitioner's suit had been passed on 11-7-1977. He had applied for its copy and had been given a chit show--ing the prospective date of delivery of the copy as 2-8- 1977. However, h obtained copy on 18-9-1977 and filed the appeal on 29-9-1977. For the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, he had also moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner did visit the Copying Office 94 2-8-1977 and he had been asked to make up deficiency in court-free which he had complied with, but as copy bad not been delivered to him, he had gone away and could not come again until 18-9-1977 on account of his illness. It is further submitted that during the month of August the Courts were closed for vacations and if the time taken in obtaining the copy and the period of the vacation of Court were excluded, the appeal was within time. We, however, find that the petitioner had obtained the copy on 18-9- 1977 but he had offered no plausible explanation for filing the appeal 29-9-1977 which was after 11 days. Since time for filing the appeal had already run out, he was to account for the delay of each and every day. The Courts below have found that he had no sufficient cause for such delay. There is, therefore, no valid ground for interference. The petition is dismissed.