MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,MIANWALI
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal which is barred by 82 days. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of delay under the law, specifically addressing confusion regarding the date of the High Court judgment and the petitioner's alleged illness. The court held that the explanation provided was unsatisfactory as each day of delay beyond the prescribed period must be explained, and the petitioner's medical condition did not prevent him from giving timely instructions for filing the petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that an applicant seeking condonation of delay must satisfactorily explain each day of delay beyond the period of limitation.
- Whether confusion regarding the date of the High Court judgment constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay?
- Does illness of a petitioner automatically justify the condonation of delay without explaining each day of default?
- Is it mandatory for an applicant to explain each day of delay beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J. ‑‑This petition is barred by 82 days.
2. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that in the first instance there was sonic confusion as to the date on which the High Court judgment was delivered, namely, whether it was 2‑5‑75 or 2‑6‑75. Even when it became clear that the judgment of the High Court was dated the 2nd of June 1975, the petitioner was unable to engage an Advocate‑on-Record for the purpose of filing this petition, as in the meantime he had fallen ill with a heart ailment. He instructed his son to do the needful, but was informed that the matter had already become time‑barred. The petitioner accordingly gave up the matter, but in the third week of September 1975, he found that the matter was not barred by time as the judgment of the High Court was dated 2‑6‑75 and not 2‑5‑75. It is submitted that the delay was thus caused by the confusion as to the date of the judgment and the indisposition of the petitioner. In support of this last ground a medical certificate has also been appended with the application showing that the petitioner received medial treatment from 5‑7‑75 to 20‑9‑75. The petition was flied on the 29th of September 1975.
3. We regret we are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner. Each day of the delay beyond the prescribed period has to be explained, but this has not been done. From the narration of facts bearing on the petitioner's illness, it becomes clear that he was not unable to give instructions for the filing of the present petition in time. We would! accordingly dismiss this petition as barred by time.
4. Petition dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Messrs YOUNUS TEXTILE MILLS vs MUHAMMAD FAZAL TAYYAB 2004 MLD 1081