Pakistan Case Law
1984 SCMR 1508

MUHAMMAD SAFDAR vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT, LAHORE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1984 SCMR 1508
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Miscellaneous Appeal No,57-R of 1984
Date1984-03-10
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, M.S.H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanuddin Khan
ResultAppeal dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The core legal question addressed was whether an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation could be entertained in the absence of a formal application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation by a period of six days. Given that the petitioner failed to file any application seeking condonation of this delay, the Court determined that it could not exercise its discretion to extend the time. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, with no order as to costs. The principle laid down is that the Court cannot condone a delay in filing an appeal where the appellant has failed to formally move an application for such condonation, thereby rendering the appeal liable to dismissal on the grounds of limitation.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can an appeal be entertained by the Supreme Court if it is filed beyond the limitation period without an application for condonation of delay?
  • Is a formal application for condonation of delay required when an appeal is filed after the expiry of the limitation period?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Order V Rule 3, Supreme Court Rules 1980
limitationcondonation of delaytime-barred appealSupreme Court Rulesdismissal of appeal

ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed under Order V, rule 3 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The appeal is barred by 6 days. No application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation but with no order as to costs.

Cited by 2 cases

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