NAZIR AHMAD vs Mst. JANDO And Other
This matter arises from a review petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was barred by 89 days. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner had the locus standi to file the review petition and whether the delay of 89 days in filing the same could be condoned, particularly when the petitioner had failed to refile a previous petition after it was returned for compliance, thereby allowing the impugned order to attain finality. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the review petition and that the delay could not be condoned as the petition constituted an impermissible attempt to reopen a matter that had already become final. The key principle laid down is that a party who fails to pursue prior proceedings diligently and allows an order to become final against them cannot subsequently invoke the jurisdiction of the court through a time-barred review petition.
- Can a time-barred review petition be entertained when the petitioner allowed the underlying order to attain finality?
- Does a party who failed to refile a returned petition have the locus standi to file a subsequent review petition against the judgment?
- Will delay in filing a review petition be condoned where the explanation offered is lack of awareness of a judgment passed in proceedings where the party was originally involved?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.-- This petition is barred by 89 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as he was not a party in Civil Appeal No. 294 of 1976, he was not aware of the judgment and it was only when a copy of the judgment was filed before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner-in the first week of June, 1984 that he came to know of it and thereafter took steps to file this petition. In the proceedings culminating in the judgment of the High Court, which was challenged in this appeal, he was a party and though he claims to be aggrieved by the order of auction, yet he did not refile the petition in this Court which was returned to him for compliance, and thus, allowed the order to become final as against him. Accordingly, he has no locus standi to file this review petition which is barred by 89 days. The delay in this context cannot be condoned as this is an attempt to reopen the matter which has assumed finality.
2. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.