ABDUL AZIZ vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others
This petition is directed against an order of the High Court dismissing a constitutional petition which was barred by 309 days. The petitioner sought condonation of delay on the ground of prosecuting a review petition in good faith in the High Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the time spent in pursuing the review petition could be condoned. The Court held that since the grounds urged in the review could not have been properly maintained in such proceedings, the pursuit of the review was not bona fide but a negligent act, and consequently the delay could not be condoned. The petition was dismissed in limine. The key principle laid down is that time spent in pursuing another remedy cannot be condoned unless the pursuit of that remedy is shown to have been bona fide.
- Can delay in filing a petition be condoned on the ground of pursuing a review petition when the grounds urged in the review were not maintainable?
- Whether time spent in prosecuting a remedy that is not pursued in good faith can be excluded for the purpose of limitation?
- Does the dismissal of a main constitutional petition as time-barred preclude the granting of leave to appeal against the refusal of a review order?
ORDER
' KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-- This is a petition against an order of the High Court, dated 5th June, 1974, dismissing a constitutional petition being W.P. 6-R of 1973, filed by the petitioner. The petition was barred by 309 days. The application has been filed for condonation of delay, on the ground that the petitioner had been in good faith pursuing another remedy namely, of review in the High Court which was instituted somewhere in July, 1974 and was dismissed on 15th May, 1975, on the short ground that this was not a fit case for review. Learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that the grounds taken were such which could have been urged in review in that view of the matter the pursuit of review was not bona fide but a clear negligent act and the time spent therein cannot be allowed. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
2. The petitioner in this petition has also challenged the order whereby the High Court dismissed the review petition on 15th May, 1975 and in the alternative seeks leave to appeal against the same.
Here again the petitioner as already mentioned has not been able to satisfy us that there really exists any case for review and that the order of the High Court holding contrarily suffers from any infirmity so as to warrant interference by this court. Moreover, having dismissed the petition against the main order, dated 5th June, 1974, the question of granting leave against the order of refusing the review even otherwise does not arise.
3. The result is that petition fails and is dismissed in limine.
Cited by 4 cases
- Syed Waqar-ul-Hassan Shah Burkhari and others vs Small Business 2024 IHC 182, 2024 CLD 1481
- Altaf Hussain vs Federal Public Service Commission through its Chairman 2020 PLC (C.S) 1558, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1707
- ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2020 PLC(CS) 1558
- Altaf Hussain vs Federal Public Service Commission through its Chairman 2019 IHC 96