MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was found to be barred by limitation by 11 days. The core legal question addressed was whether the petitioner provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the petition. The Supreme Court observed that the impugned order was passed on December 7, 1973, and despite the petitioner applying for a copy in January 1974 and receiving it in March 1974, the petition was not filed until April 26, 1974, leaving an unexplained gap of one month. Furthermore, the petitioner's claim of being under a misconception regarding the calculation of time was rejected, as the Registry had explicitly informed the Advocate-on-Record of the time bar upon filing. The Court held that in civil matters, a valuable right accrues to the opposing party through the lapse of time, necessitating a satisfactory explanation for each day of delay. Finding no such explanation, the Court dismissed the petition as time-barred.
- Is a petitioner required to explain each day of delay in filing a petition in civil matters?
- Can a vague claim of misconception regarding time calculation serve as sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
- Does a valuable right accrue to the opposing party upon the lapse of the limitation period in civil litigation?
ORDER
1. ' HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This petition is barred by 11 days. When it first came up for hearing on the 30th of December 1974, time was granted, at the request of the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, for filing an application for the condo nation of the delay. That application was filed only on the 18th of February 1975. Now the excuse put forward in the application is that the petitioner was laboring under the impression that since the time for obtaining the copy was to be allowed, the application was in time.
2. ' In this case the impugned order of the High Court was made on the 7th of December 1973. Copy of the order was applied for on the 17th of January 1974. It was made ready on the 26th of March 1974 but the petition was filed only on the 26th of April 1974. There is no explanation for the delay between the 26th of March 194, and the 26th of April 1974.
3. It further appears that immediately the petition was brought to the Registry of this Court, the learned Advocate-on-Record was informed that it was barred by time. The explanation that the petitioner was under some misconception cannot, therefore, be accepted.
4. ' In civil matters a valuable right accrues to the other side by lapse of time and it is necessary that each day's delay should be satisfactorily explained. 8 This the petitioner has clearly failed to do in the .Present case. This petition is accordingly dismissed as being barred of time.
Cited by 7 cases
- Syed MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (KESC) 2016 YLRN 196
- ZAMAN Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN 2017 YLRN 353
- HABIBULLAH vs MEHAR through L.Rs. and 2 otherss 2014 YLR 128
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD 2010 YLR 2710
- KAZIM IMAM JAN vs MUHAMMAD JAWAID and 4 others 2003 CLC 200
- Mst. KARAM SAWAI alias KARAMO MAI Versus GUL SHER 2007 MLD 1790
- Messrs AINY BUILDERS AND COMPANY HYDERABAD And 2 Others vs HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD Through Administrator_Mayoropponent 1997 MLD 732