Hakeem ABDUR REHMAN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND Another
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, which was filed 182 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner sought condonation of the delay, citing his advanced age (80 years) and illness (asthma), which allegedly hindered his ability to raise the necessary funds for court fees in a timely manner. The core legal question was whether poverty or financial difficulty constitutes a valid ground for condoning a significant delay in filing a petition. The Supreme Court held that financial hardship or poverty is not a valid legal ground for condonation of delay. The Court emphasized that if a litigant is indigent, the proper legal recourse is to file an application in forma pauperis rather than allowing the limitation period to expire while attempting to raise funds. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as time-barred due to the lack of a valid basis for condonation.
- Does poverty or financial difficulty constitute a valid ground for the condonation of delay in filing a legal petition?
- What is the appropriate legal procedure for a litigant who cannot afford court fees to pursue an appeal?
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave, which is directed against the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, made in a Letters Patent Appeal which arose out of a Settlement writ filed by the petitioner in the High Court, is barred by 182 days. The judgment of the Letters Patent Bench was announced on the 19th of May 1969, and the present petition was filed on the 31st of July 1969. The ground as stated in the petition for the condonation of delay and which has been urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner who is an old man of 80 years, after engaging the attorney for the filing of the petition, had gone back to his home to arrange for funds for purchase of the requisite court-fee and other expenditure, but fell ill with an attack of asthma. He could not, therefore, raise the entire amount in a lump sum needed for the prosecution of his petition, but went on sending the amount piecemeal to his attorney as and when he found it. He was not able to raise the whole amount even up to the time of the filing of the petition and the deficiency of Rs. 60 was made good by the attorney from his own pocket. The plea for the condonation of delay recall amounts to plea of poverty which is not at a valid ground. If the petitioner is a pauper, he should have filed his application in forma pauperis instead of spending the time in the risky effort of raising funds from different sources and allowing the limitation period to slip out in the meanwhile.
2. As there is no valid basis for the condonation of delay, we are constrained to dismiss this petition as time-barred.
Cited by 7 cases
- Liaqat Hussain vs Mohammad Ashiq 2023 CLC 768
- Liaqat Hussain vs Mohammad Ashiq 2022 LHC 6560
- MUHAMMAD MUSTANSIR Versus MAHNDI KHAN 2020 CLCN 4
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD through L.Rs, and others vs Mst. FAZAL BIBI and others- 2016 SCP 61, 2016 PLD Supreme Court 872
- Dr. ANWAR ALI SAHTO and others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 526
- Khushi Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs. (in C.A.2564_2001) and 7 others vs Mst. Fazal Bibi etc. (in C.A.2564_2001)and 7 others 2016 SCP 61
- DR. ANWAR ALI SAHTO Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2002 PLD 101