Mst. HAJRAN RHATOON And Others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal that was filed with a significant delay of 1419 days. The petitioners sought condonation of this delay, arguing that the time was spent pursuing an Intra-Court Appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 6-11-1982. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing an incompetent Intra-Court Appeal could be excluded for the purpose of condoning delay. The Supreme Court rejected this plea, holding that the Intra-Court Appeal was incompetent because the "original order" under the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Act 1972 refers to the order initiating the proceedings, which in this case was the order of 2-1-1960. Since an appeal was competent against that original order under the relevant statute, the subsequent Intra-Court Appeal was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court held that the time spent in such incompetent proceedings could not be excused. The petition was dismissed as time-barred, affirming that mistaken legal advice or pursuing an incompetent remedy does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay.
- What is the meaning of the expression 'original order' in the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Act 1972?
- Can time spent pursuing an incompetent Intra-Court Appeal be excluded for the purpose of condoning delay?
- Does an Intra-Court Appeal lie against an order where an appeal was already competent against the original order initiating proceedings?
- Section 3(2), Law Reforms Act 1972
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This petition, according to the office note, is barred by 1419 days.
2. Condonation of delay is sought on the ground that the petitioners had filed an Intra-Court Appeal as the order impugned in the High Court was the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 6-11-1982 and at the relevant time no appeal was competent against this order.
3. There is no force in this plea because the expression "original order" occurring in the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Act (VIII of 1972) means the order with which the proceedings under the relevant statute commenced (see PLD 1985 SC 107 and PLD 1984 SC 344) and admittedly, the order with which the proceedings commenced in this case was the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 2-1-1960. As an appeal was competent against the said order under the relevant statute the Intra-Court Appeal filed by the petitioners was incompetent.
4. The benefit for the time taken in pursuing this incompetent appeal cannot, therefore, be allowed.
5. No good ground for condonation of delay is made out. This petition is dismissed as barred by time.