MOHIUDDIN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing the petitioner's Letters Patent Appeal as barred by time. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner exhibited gross negligence and a lack of due care and caution in prosecuting the proceedings, noting that even after the petition was returned from the wrong forum, the petitioner failed to refile a properly constituted appeal within the time allowed by the High Court registry. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that time spent in a wrong forum may be excluded under a liberal view, but subsequent unexplained delays and gross negligence by a party will disentitle them to a condonation of delay.
- Whether time spent in prosecuting an appeal in a wrong forum can be excluded for the purpose of limitation?
- Does gross negligence and lack of due care in refiling an appeal justify the refusal to condone delay?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary power in refusing to condone delay when properly exercised?
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi; by which the petitioner's Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as barred by time: The judgment of the learned Single Judge which was impugned in the Letters Patent Appeal, was made on the 30th of September 1965, in a Settlement Writ under Article 98 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962. Instead of filing the appeal in the High Court, the petitioner lodged a petition for special leave to appeal in this Court on the 19th of November 1965. This was returned to him by the Registry on the 15th of December 1965, with the note that it should be presented to the proper Court (i. e. The High Court) in which the Letters Patent Appeal was competent as per decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1965 (Mumtaz Khan v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner)dated the 29th of October 1965.
2. Without bothering to draft a proper appeal addressed to the High Court, the petitioner lodged the very same petition, without any amendment, in the High Court on the very date, viz. 15th December 1965. The High Court Registry. Pointed out the error and allowed seven days for representation of the appeal after necessary corrections. No one turned up on behalf of the petitioner to collect the papers from the High Court till the 3rd of January 1966. The appeal was then filed in the High Court on the 10th of January 1966.
3. Even if on a liberal view, the time spent in prosecuting the appeal in. a wrong forum is to be excluded because of the doubt) regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the Letters Patent Appeal, there is no satisfactory explanation why a proper appeal was not presented in the High Court within time after the petition was returned by the Registry of the Supreme Court. It seems that the whole affair was being treated lightly. Even after the petitioner was informed on the 15th of December 1965, that his appeal as in the High Court was not properly constituted and that he should represent it within seven days, no one cared to pay any heed to that note and the papers were not taken back till the 3rd of January 1966.
4. The circumstances depicted above clearly disclose a case of gross negligence, lack of due care and caution in the prosecution of judicial proceedings. The High Court in its discretion ha refused to condone the delay and we find no justification to interfere with that discretion which has been properly exercised.
5. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD through L.Rs, and others vs Mst. FAZAL BIBI and others- 2016 SCP 61, 2016 PLD Supreme Court 872
- Khushi Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs. (in C.A.2564_2001) and 7 others vs Mst. Fazal Bibi etc. (in C.A.2564_2001)and 7 others 2016 SCP 61