BAKHOO vs Mst. KHADIJA And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Regular Second Appeal on the grounds of it being time-barred by 127 days. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in refusing to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, based on the petitioner's claim of illness. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's finding that the petitioner failed to provide reliable material to substantiate that the alleged illness rendered him incapacitated to the extent of being unable to file the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion soundly and provided valid, logical reasons for rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the Court found the High Court's order unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court's discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, will not be interfered with when it is based on sound reasoning and a lack of evidence regarding the alleged incapacity.
- Does the failure to provide reliable evidence of incapacity justify the refusal to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary order rejecting an application for condonation of delay if the order is based on sound reasons?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 8-1-1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Regular Second Appeal filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as time-barred.
2. It is not denied that the appeal was barred by 127 days but the learned counsel has contended that the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act should have been allowed.
3. The learned Judge in the High Court took note of ground of the illness taken in the application for condonation of delay and came to the conclusion that there was no reliable material to hold that the petitioner was so incapacitated as to be unable to file an appeal. Accordingly, the delay was not condoned and application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, was dismissed.
4.The order passed by the High Court in its discretion when rejecting the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is supported by sound reasons and is thus unexceptionable. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.