Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 310

MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 310
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 815 of 1982
Date1988-07-19
Judge(s)Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Saad Saood Jan
ResultPetition dismissed
Summary

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had previously declined to restore a petition and refused to condone the delay in filing. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petition before it was also barred by a period of six days. The Court directed the petitioner's counsel to provide a satisfactory explanation or show sufficient cause for the delay to justify condonation. The counsel failed to provide any satisfactory explanation or demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of a valid explanation for the delay, the petition could not be entertained. The Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was time-barred. This judgment reinforces the principle that the condonation of delay is not a matter of course and requires the petitioner to demonstrate sufficient cause for the failure to file within the prescribed limitation period, failing which the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the failure to provide sufficient cause for a delay in filing a petition warrant its dismissal?
  • Is the condonation of delay in filing a petition a matter of right or discretion?
leave to appealcondonation of delaylimitation periodtime-barred petitionsufficient cause

ORDER

1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Muhammad Bashir son of Muhammad Ramzan resident of Jahangir Bazar, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 30-5-1982 whereby the learned Judge of Lahore High Court declined to restore the petition any refused to condone the delay.

2. The petition before us is also barred by six days. We called upon the learned counsel to first satisfy us that there was good ground to condone the delay.

3. Learned counsel could not give any satisfactory explanation nor could show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. This petition is accordingly B dismissed as barred by six days.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.