Pakistan Case Law
1988 SCMR 1910

KHAIROO Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1988 SCMR 1910
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.35‑Q of 1987
Date1988-05-23
Judge(s)Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A.Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza
Authored byAbdul Kadir Shaikh
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was filed with a delay of two days. The core legal question considered by the court was whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay in filing the petition, where the applicant pleaded confusion in calculating time. The Supreme Court held that the plea had no basis and that no valid justification existed for condoning the delay, especially since a valuable right had accrued to the respondents. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that a vague plea of confusion in calculating limitation periods, unsupported by plausible grounds, does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the law.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether confusion in calculating time constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing a petition?
  • Can a time-barred petition be entertained when a valuable right has accrued to the opposite party?
condonation of delaytime-barred petitionlimitationsufficient causeSupreme Court

ORDER

1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J .‑‑This petition is time‑barred by 2 days and the ground urged in support of the request for condonation of the delay is "that there was confusion in calculating the time therefore counsel was under impression that the petition is within time".

2. The request for the condonation of the delay is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the caveators on the ground that there could not possibly be any basis for wrong calculation of time and in this connection he has pointed out the crucial dates of the judgment .of the High Court, the application for grant of copies, the date of preparation of the copies and the delivery thereof.

3. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties we entirely agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the caveators that the plea raised in support of the request for condonation of the delay has no basis at all. Since a valuable right has accrued to the respondents by the delay in the filing of the petition for which there is no valid justification for condonation, we have no option but to dismiss the petition as barred by time.

4. Order accordingly.

5. M.I. /K‑69/S Petition dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.