UNITED BANK LTD. vs Haji Malik MUHAMMAD UMER
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court, which remanded two connected suits to the trial court for re-trial. The respondent had filed two separate suits against the petitioner Bank, which were decided differently. While the petitioner's appeal against the decree in one suit was timely, the respondent's appeal against the dismissal of the other suit was admittedly time-barred. Despite explicitly acknowledging that the respondent's appeal was barred by limitation and that no grounds for condonation of delay were presented, the High Court condoned the delay solely on the basis that the suits involved the same parties and account, and that the connected appeal had been remanded. The core legal question is whether a court has the jurisdiction to condone a time-barred appeal and remand a case when no valid grounds for condonation of delay exist. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction in condoning the delay without legal justification requires examination, and ordered a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending the appeal's disposal.
- Can a High Court condone a delay in filing an appeal solely on the ground that a connected case is being remanded?
- Does a court have jurisdiction to remand a case when the appeal against the trial court's judgment is time-barred and no grounds for condonation are established?
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The respondent had filed two suits against the petitioner Bank on different causes of action and for different amounts. Suit No.39 of 1982 was filed for recovery of Rs.36,000 and the Suit No. 40 of 1982 was filed for the recovery of Rs.4,000. Suit No.39 of 1982 was dismissed on 10-3- 1985 while the other suit No.40 of 1982 was decreed on 29-5-1985. In respect of the judgment and decree arising out of suit No.39 of 1982, an admittedly belated Regular First Appeal No.16 of 1985 was filed by the respondent on or about 11-12-1985. The judgment and decree passed in the other suit No.40 of 1982 was also challenged by the petitioner in Regular First Appeal No. 7 of 1985. Both the above appeals were taken up together by the learned High Court on 16-3-1985. The petitioners Appeal No.7 of 1985, being prior in point of time, was taken up first and the judgment and decree passed in the suit was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal.
Regular First Appeal No.16 of 1985, brought by the respondent, was also taken up on the same date and although the appeal was held to be time-barred by the learned High Court, yet the same was accepted and the case was remanded to the trial Court. The finding of the learned High Court in this respect reads as follows:- "Regarding limitation in fact no ground had been made for condonation of delay in the application but as the Appeal No. 7 of 1985 which has been allowed and remanded for re-trial and this case is connected between the same parties in respect of the same account I would therefore, condone the delay and also remand this case for re-trial."
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court having clearly found the respondent's appeal to be barred by time, was left with no jurisdiction to remand the case and the appeal ought to have been dismissed.
3. The contentions raised above require examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.1,000. The appeal will be heard on the same record. The proceedings in suit No.39 of 1982 before the trial Court shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal.