Messrs FATIMA EXPORT CORPORATION and another vs HABIB BANK Ltd.
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioners' Regular First Appeal, which arose from an ex-parte decree passed by a Banking Court. The case had previously been remanded to the High Court to determine the sustainability of the ex-parte decree on merits and to resolve whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. Upon remand, the High Court concluded that the period claimed for exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was not permissible. Furthermore, the High Court held that the petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay, noting that even if the petitioners had received incorrect legal advice from counsel, such advice does not automatically constitute sufficient cause for condonation, particularly when the conduct of the petitioners themselves did not warrant such indulgence. The Supreme Court, finding no merit in the petition, affirmed the High Court's findings on limitation and conduct, ultimately refusing leave to appeal.
- Does incorrect legal advice from counsel automatically constitute sufficient cause for the condonation of delay?
- Can a period of time be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 if the circumstances do not meet the statutory requirements?
- Is the conduct of the party seeking condonation of delay a relevant factor in determining whether to grant such relief?
- Section 14, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought from dismissal by the High Court of petitioners' Regular First Appeal, which had arisen out of a decree passed against them by a Banking Court.
2. ' The case had earlier been brought before this Court. It was remanded to the High Court for fresh decision; as to whether, the ex parte decree passed against the petitioners on 6-7-1981 was sustainable on merits; and whether, the petitioners' first appeal before the High Court against that decree, as distinguished from the order refusing to set aside the order for proceeding ex parte, was within time.
3. ' After the remand the learned Division Bench, in elaborate order dealt with the question of limitation and after noticing all the relevant material including dates in this behalf, came to the conclusion that there was no question of the exclusion of the excess period claimed in that behalf.
4. It has also been held that there was no justifiable ground for condoning the delay.
5. The narration of the facts and the dates in the impugned order makes it absolutely clear that the relevant period could not be claimed as an exclusion under section 14 of the Limitation Act regardless of the fact whether the petitioner's counsel was negligent or not in tendering right or wrong advice. On the second point if it is assumed that the petitioners were given wrong advice by the counsel, this in the circumstances of the case would, as held by the High Court, not be sufficient cause for condonation by itself. Otherwise too the conduct of the petitioners themselves, apart from what their counsel advised, is not such that it would have merited condonation in question.
6. Looked at from whatever angle there is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs Shahzada KHURRAM NAZIR 2011 YLR 763