RAHIM BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
These are two petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court. The first petition is barred by a substantial delay of 835 days, for which the petitioner seeks condonation based on the time spent pursuing an incompetent Intra-Court appeal. The Supreme Court holds, following established precedent, that pursuing an incompetent appeal does not constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and consequently dismisses the time-barred petition. The second petition arises from a property dispute over a divisible house in Sutar Mandi, Lahore, where the petitioners have already received the portion in their possession. The Court accordingly refuses leave to appeal in the second matter as well. The key principle laid down is that time spent prosecuting an incompetent remedy, such as an incompetent Intra-Court appeal, cannot be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation or condoning delay.
- Whether time spent pursuing an incompetent intra-court appeal constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
- Can a time-barred petition for special leave to appeal be entertained without sufficient cause shown for the delay?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the same judgment of the Lahore High Court.
2. The petition bearing No, 692/83 is barred by 835 days. The petitioner seeks condonation of the delay. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had preferred an Intra-Court appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge. It was dismissed as incompetent. The petitioner prays that the time spent in pursuing the Intra-Court appeal should be excluded in computing limitation. In view of the judgments of this Court in Noor Muhammad v. Assistant Commissioner 1986 SCM R 292, Mst. Hajran Khatoon v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1987 SCM R 1153 and Syed Sajjad Haider v. Field General Court Martial 1988 SCM R 1035, we can hardly find this as sufficient ground for condonation of the delay. The petition is therefore dismissed as barred by time.
3. As regards C.P. No, 2 of 1982, it may be stated that the dispute between the parties relates to a house situate in Sutar Mandi inside Lahori Gate, which was found to be divisible. The petitioners have already been given the portion that was in their possession. Leave is refused.