NAKULESWAR SIKDAR vs BARUN CHANDRA CHAKRAVORTY AND Another
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was challenged on the grounds of being time-barred. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's erroneous belief that the limitation period for filing a petition for special leave commenced from the date of the signing of the decree constituted sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Court held that the petition was barred by 20 days and dismissed it, finding the explanation for the delay inadequate. The Court clarified that the limitation period for filing a petition for special leave to appeal begins to run from the date of the delivery of the judgment, not the date of the signing of the decree. While the time spent obtaining a copy of the decree may be considered for condonation, the petitioner must satisfactorily explain each day of delay. Because the petitioner failed to provide a valid explanation for the period following the receipt of the certified copy, the Court refused to condone the delay.
- Does the limitation period for filing a petition for special leave to appeal commence from the date of the judgment or the date of the signing of the decree?
- Is a copy of the decree required to be filed along with a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Can the time spent obtaining a copy of the decree be considered for the purpose of condoning delay in filing a petition for special leave?
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-This petition is barred by 20 days and the only explanation given for the delay is that the petitioner was under the erroneous impression that the time for filing of petitions for special leave in this Court in civil matters com--menced from the date of the signing of the decree. This impres--sion is wrong, for, a copy of the decree is not required to be filed h along with the petition for special leave to appeal.
2. In the present case, the judgment of the High Court was delivered on the 3rd July 1969, copies were applied for on the 13th August 1969, decree was signed on the 15th of October 1969 and certified copies of the judgment and decree were delivered on the 30th of October 1969. The petition for special leave was, however, filed on the 9th of December 1969. There is no expla--nation for the delay that took place after the certified copy of the decree was received.
3. The petition should have been filed on the 16th of Novem--ber 1969. This gave the petitioner ample time even after the receipt of the certified copies to put in his petition for special leave.
4. The time for filing the petition for special leave begins to run from the date of the delivery of the judgment but even if a copy of e the decree has to be filed it does not give a fresh lease of limita-- tion but the time spent in obtaining the copy of the decree may be taken into consideration in condoning the delay, provided the petitioner has satisfactorily explained each day's delay.
5. In the present case, we are not satisfied that the delay, since e receipt of the certified copy, has been adequately explained, hence we are unable to condone the delay. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed as being barred by time.
Cited by 9 cases
- Director of Customs Valuation vs M/s. Hanna Dairies, I-301 2022 SHC 304
- The Director of Customs Valuation through Additional Director Directorate 2023 PTD 68
- The Director of Customs Valuation through Additional Director Directorate PTCL 2023 CL 322
- Crescent Star Insurance Limited vs Commissioner (Insurance) Secp, Islamabad 2020 CLD 372
- FIRST PAKISTAN SECURITY LIMITED and others vs BANK ALFALAH LIMITED 2020 CLD 269
- Province of Sindh and others vs Messrs Parkock Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. 2020 PLD Sindh 136
- APOLLO TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus SONERI BANK LTD. 2012 PLD 268
- APOLLO TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus SONERI BANK LTD. 2012 CLD 337
- KALA (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs ALLAH DAD (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL 1977 PLD Lahore 376