FAZAL KARIM And Another vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of a High Court Single Judge dated 20-1-1975. The petition was filed with a delay of 437 days. The petitioners sought condonation of this delay, arguing that the time spent pursuing an incompetent Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court should be excluded. The core legal question was whether pursuing an incompetent legal remedy constitutes sufficient ground for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal. The Supreme Court held that the time spent pursuing an incompetent remedy before a Letters Patent Bench does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay, as there was no ambiguity regarding the competency of the appeal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The principle laid down is that the pursuit of a clearly incompetent legal remedy does not justify the condonation of delay under the law of limitation.
- Does the time spent pursuing an incompetent Letters Patent Appeal constitute sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Can a delay of 437 days be condoned based solely on the erroneous legal advice of counsel?
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--According to the office note, this petition is barred by 437 days.
2. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 20-1-1975.. Against the said order, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the High Court which was dismissed as incompetent on 24-2-1976. This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20-1-1975. This petition against the said order is barred by 437 days.
3. The only ground urged in excuse of the delay is that a seniors counsel had erroneously filed the appeal before the Letters Patent Bench against the order of learned Single Judge and the the consumed ins pursuing that remedy may be excluded.
4. We do not consider that this is a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Clearly no appeal by before the Letters Patent Bench and the appeal that was filed was not at all competent. There being ambiguity on this regard, the the spent in pursuing the remedy before the Letters Patent Bench, cannot be condoned.
5. This petition, therefore, fails on the ground of limitation and is dismissed accordingly.