ALLAH RAKHI Versus IRSHAD BIBI
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a civil revision in limine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petition, which was barred by a significant delay of 377 days, could be entertained without an application for condonation of delay or a satisfactory explanation from the counsel. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by time and could not be entertained in the absence of any application for condonation of delay or a satisfactory explanation. The key principle laid down is that a time-barred petition without proper application or justification for the delay is liable to be dismissed.
- Whether a petition filed beyond the period of limitation can be entertained without an application for condonation of delay?
- Can a time-barred petition be maintained when the counsel fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay?
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑ ‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment and decree dated 17‑6 1991, of the Lahore High Court, whereby Civil Revision No. 1093/1991, w dismissed in limine.
2. As per office report, this petition is barred by 377 days. The petitioner has neither filed application for condonation of delay nor the learned counsel appearing on her behalf could give sati factory explanation therefore. This petition is, therefore, dismissed being barred by time.
A.A./A‑1174/S Petition dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- Muhammad Saeed vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited 2023 PLC (C.S.) 517
- Dr. Rana MUHAMMAD AKHLAQ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Cabinet Division 2015 PLC(CS) 568
- AFTAB SHAHBAN MIRANI vs PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and others 1998 SCMR 1863
- Muhammad Saeed vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited & 2022 IHC 100