ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF.PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR AND Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which was submitted with a delay of 108 days. The petitioner sought condonation of this delay, arguing that the time spent pursuing an application for a certificate of fitness before the Peshawar High Court—which was ultimately dismissed—should be excluded. The core legal question was whether the time wasted in pursuing a legally misconceived and incompetent application for a certificate of fitness before the High Court constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay under the law. The Supreme Court held that the application for a certificate was entirely misconceived, as the High Court lacked the authority to grant such a certificate under the Interim Constitution except for substantial questions regarding constitutional interpretation. The Court ruled that ignorance of the law does not excuse a party from the consequences of delay, particularly when it infringes upon the valuable rights accrued to the opposing party through the lapse of time. Consequently, the request for condonation was rejected, and the petition was dismissed as time-barred.
- Does the time spent pursuing a legally misconceived application for a certificate of fitness constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Can ignorance of the law be accepted as a valid ground to condone delay and defeat a valuable right accrued to the opposing party?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court grant a certificate of fitness for appeal under the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
- Section 109, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 110, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XLIV Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Article 186(2)(a), Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This petition by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Communications Government of Pakistan is barred by 108 days. An application has however been filed for the condonation of tie delay on the ground that after the writ filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court on the 3rd of August, 1972 the petitioner applied to the High Court for a certificate presumably under sections 109 and 110 read with Order XLIV, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without noticing that under clause 2(a) of Article 186 of the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan the High Court could only certify the case if it involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the said Constitution and on no other ground could a certificate of fitness be granted by the High Court.
2. The application for the certificate was therefore, hopelessly misconceived. Nevertheless, it has been contended in the petition for the condonation of delay that the period spent in pursuing this application in the High Court which was refused on the 1st of December 1972 should be condoned and the petition entertained.
3. A valuable right accrues to the other side by the lapse of time and he cannot be lightly deprived of this right merely on the ground that the other side has unnecessarily wasted time on frivolous and wholly misconceived petitions in the High Court. There was no justification at all for the application for the certificate of fitness which was filed in the High Court. It was neither competent under the Interim Constitution nor under the Civil Procedure Code and it was rightly dismissed by the High Court on that ground.
4. Ignorance of law can never be an excuse sufficient to defeat another person's right. We cannot, therefore accede to the request made for the condonation of the delay. It is refused and the petition is dismissed as being hopelessly barred by time.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 8 others vs BAHAN and anothers 2000 YLR 378
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR-and others vs Mst. BIHAN and others 2000 C.L.R. 962
- DR. BASHIR AHMAD vs DR. SHAUKAT RAZA KHAN AND OTHERS 1980 PLC (C. S.) 17