LABHU vs Mst. MUMTAZBEGUM
This petition sought leave to appeal against a High Court order refusing to quash a Settlement Authority's decision to transfer an evacuee house to Mst. Mumtazi Begum, which the petitioner had claimed for himself. The petition was filed 178 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, citing that his counsel informed him of the High Court's decision very late and that time was consumed in obtaining legal advice and collecting funds. The Supreme Court held that the reasons provided for the delay were vague, as no specific dates were mentioned, and the circumstances were not beyond the petitioner's control. Consequently, the Court found that property rights had already vested in the respondent due to the petitioner's failure to act in time. The petition was dismissed as time-barred, affirming the principle that unexplained and avoidable delays in filing appeals cannot be condoned, particularly when vested property rights are at stake.
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained when it is filed 178 days beyond the limitation period without sufficient cause?
- Does a failure to provide specific dates for the reasons behind a delay in filing an appeal justify the refusal of condonation?
- Are delays caused by a party's own inaction or failure to coordinate with counsel considered circumstances beyond the party's control?
1. CORNELIUS, C. J.-This petition seeking leave to appeal against refusal by the High Court to quash an order of a Settle--ment Authority transferring an evacuee house to one Mst. Mumtazi Begum which the petitioner had claimed for himself, is barred by time by 178 days. Property rights are involved, which have become vested in Mst. Mumtazi Begum through the petitioner's failure to move this petition in time. The causes of his failure set out in his application for condonation of the delay are (a) that his counsel in the High Court informed him of the decision "very very late," and
(b) that time was taken in obtaining legal advice and collecting money. No dates are mentioned.
2. Evidently, the delays were due to circumstances not beyond the petitioner's control. The petition is accordingly dismissed as barred by time.