MUHAMMAD RAZA And Others vs Mst. AALIA And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Baluchistan High Court. The petition was presented with a delay of two days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioners sought condonation of delay, arguing that their failure to file on time was due to a bona fide mistake in computing the 60-day limitation period and the distance of their residence from the court. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the petition was prepared and the power of attorney signed two days before the actual filing date, with no explanation provided for this intervening delay. The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay, as the explanation offered did not account for the period between the preparation of the petition and its actual submission. Consequently, the Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the petition as time-barred, emphasizing that a lack of sufficient explanation for the delay precludes the exercise of discretion in favor of the applicant.
- Does a bona fide mistake in computing the limitation period constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Is a petitioner entitled to condonation of delay when the petition was prepared days before filing but submitted without explanation after the limitation period expired?
ORDER
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Baluchistan High Court dated 22nd July, 1986. The petition was presented with a delay of two days according to the office of this Court.
2. Before considering the petition on merits we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners to the request for the condonation of delay. The explanation for delay furnished in the application for condonation is as under:- "The petitioners are residents of Yousaf Kach in District Pishin which is far away from Quetta. The petitioners could not contact their Advocate-on-Record earlier due to their impression that 60 days' period would expire after two days."
Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the delay was not intentional or deliberate but due to bona fide mistake in computing the period of 60 days from the date of the delivery of the certified copy of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the caveator strongly opposed the application and submitted that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been made out.
3. We have perused the record and we find that the petition was drawn up and prepared on 27th September, 1986 and the power of attorney authorizing the learned Advocate to act on behalf of the petitioners was also signed on the same day. Yet for no apparent reason the petition was submitted to this Court on 29th September, 1986. As no explanation for this delay has been furnished, when there was no hurdle in presenting the petition on 27th September, 1986, we are not satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to condonation of delay. The application is accordingly dismissed. In consequence the petition being barred by time is also dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- PROVINCE OF SIND Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAB 1989 CLC 2110