GHULAM AHMAD AND 42 Others vs D. C., GUJRAT AND Another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for special leave directed against an order of the High Court of West Pakistan summarily dismissing a constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution. The petition was filed seven days beyond the period of limitation. The core legal question concerns whether the absence of a senior counsel during court vacation constitutes a sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing a civil petition. The Supreme Court held that the unavailability of a senior counsel is not a sufficient excuse for delay, as a junior counsel or alternative counsel could have filed the petition, and valuable rights accruing to the opposite party cannot be defeated on such grounds. The court dismissed the petition as being barred by time, laying down the principle that courts will not condone delay merely to suit the personal convenience of counsel.
- Does the absence of a senior counsel during court vacation constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing a petition?
- Can valuable rights accrued to an opposite party be defeated on the grounds of counsel's convenience?
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-This petition, which is directed against an order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, summarily dismissing a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution on the 4th July 1967, is barred by 7 days.
2. The last date for filing the petition for special leave was the 4th of September 1967, but it was filed on the 12th of September 1967, and the only explanation that is given for this delay in the application for condonation is that although the papers were complete it could not be filed, as the learned Senior counsel engaged to appear in the case was away from Lahore during the vacation of the Court.
3. This can hardly be a sufficient excuse for the delay. If a Senior counsel is away his junior could have filed the petition or some other learned counsel could have been engaged. The Court cannot condone delay in a Civil matter to suit the convenience of learned counsel. Valuable rights accrue in such matters to the opposite-parties and they cannot be deprived of their rights on such flimsy grounds. This petition is petition accordingly, dismissed as being barred by time.