THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF vs Pir AFTAB HUSSAIN and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of the petitioner's first appeal by the High Court against an original order of the District Court determining the character of the suit property as to whether it was Waqf property. The appeal before the High Court was dismissed as being time-barred. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 on the ground that the papers were handed over to counsel in time and that the counsel was negligent or allegedly collusive with the opposite party. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings and the appreciation of facts by the High Court regarding the limitation issue were unexceptionable, and there was no ground to differ. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming that negligence or alleged collusion of counsel does not automatically warrant condonation of delay when properly evaluated and rejected on facts by the lower appellate court.
- Whether the negligence of a counsel in filing an appeal within time constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against the dismissal of a first appeal on the ground of limitation when the lower court's appreciation of facts is found to be unexceptionable?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner's first appeal against an original order of the District Court regarding the character of the suit property; namely, whether or not it was Waqf property.
2. ' Admittedly the appeal was time-barred and was dismissed as such.
3. ' Learned counsel, however, contended that the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act should have been allowed on the ground that the papers for filing the appeal were handed over to the counsel well in time and that if he had not acted with gross negligence the appeal could have been filed within time. He also contended that the conduct of the counsel engaged for the petitioner in the High Court smelt collusion with the opposite-party.
4. Same arguments were raised before the High Court. They were repelled by observation regarding facts. There is no reason to differ with the High Court on the question of appreciation of facts before it. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.
5. ' Leave to .