MANZOOR AHMAD Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seven days after the expiry of the period of limitation. The petitioner sought condonation of the delay, contending that a misreading of the date on the certified copy of the judgment—specifically misinterpreting '28-3-1978' as '18-3-1978'—caused the filing error. The Court examined the endorsement of the Copying Department and found that the figure '2' was distinct from the figure '1' used elsewhere in the document. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner should have been aware of the actual date they submitted their own application for copies. The Court held that the petitioner failed to exercise ordinary diligence in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the Court determined that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was established. The plea for condonation was refused, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as time-barred, establishing the principle that a party's failure to exercise ordinary diligence regarding their own procedural timelines does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay.
- Does a misreading of a date on a certified copy by a party constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Is a party's failure to know the date of their own application for copies considered a lack of ordinary diligence?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed if it is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation without sufficient cause?
ORDER
M.S.H.QURAISHI, J.-- This petition, according to the office note was filed seven days after the expiry of the period of limitation. It is to be noted that although the petition itself was filed on 27-5-1980, the application for condonation of the delay was moved on 1-11-1980. The contention is that the date of applying for copy, as given on the certified copy, which was 28-3-1978, was inadvertently read as 18-3-1978. It is true that the figure '2' is not very clearly written but nevertheless there was no scope for misreading because figure '1' wherever appearing in the endorsement of the Copying Department on the certified copy is very differently written. Moreover, that date " of application for copy of the grounds and many other document from the High Court is also 28-3-1978. Even otherwise, the petitioner ought to have known the date of his own submitting the application. This is, therefore, a case of lack of ordinary diligence and as such no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay can be said to have been made out.
2. The plea for condonation of the delay is refused and accordingly the petition for leave to appeal is dismissed as barred by time.
S. Q./M-300/S Petition dismissed.