Malik ABDUS SALAM AND 2 Others vs Syed Haji ISHAQ AND 3 Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal arising from partition proceedings of Shamilat land, which had been ongoing since 1957. The petitioners sought to challenge an order of the High Court that had set aside a revisional order by the Member, Board of Revenue. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed 24 days beyond the period of limitation. The petitioners sought condonation of delay, citing the illness of petitioner No. 1, supported by a medical certificate, for the period between July 15, 1975, and September 10, 1975. The Court examined the medical evidence and the circumstances of the case, determining that the nature of the ailment did not render the petitioner completely helpless, especially given that two other co-petitioners shared an equal interest in the litigation. Consequently, the Court held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The petition was dismissed as time-barred, affirming the principle that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a sufficient and convincing explanation for the entire period of default.
- Does the illness of one petitioner constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay when other co-petitioners have an equal interest in the matter?
- Is a medical certificate alone sufficient to justify the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal arising out of partition proceedings of Shamilat land and initiated as far as the 3rd of November, 1957, is barred by 24 days. The partition was finalized by the Extra-Assistant Commissioner on 20-5-1964 after disposing of tie objections whose order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Collector and the Commissioner, who respectively dismissed the appeal and revision, vide order dated 20-3-1967 and 1-5-1969. The Member, Board of Revenue, however, allowed a revision petition by means of a short order dated 24-11-1970, which he declined to review. The revisional order was, however, set aside by a D. B. Of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court which accepted the Constitutional petition filed by respondents 1 to 3. It is from this order that leave to appeal is sought by the petitioners.
2. Last date for filing the petition was 17-8-1975 plus the time taken in obtaining the copy thereof. The petition was actually filed on 17-9-1975.
3. A perusal of the record shows that application for obtaining a copy of the order was made on 26- 6-1975 which was ready for delivery on 2-7-1975. Delivery was actually obtained on 14-7-1975.
4. Condonation of delay has been sought on ground of illness of the petitioner No. 1 from 15-7-1975 to 10-9-1975, which is supported by a medical certificate.
5. Having perused the certificate as also having heard the learned counsel, we are not satisfied that the nature of ailment was such as to render petitioner No. 1 completely helpless to establish contact with his counsel particularly when two other co-Petitioners had also their interests equally at stake with him. Thus in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of the delay, we decline to condone the same and dismiss the petition as, barred by limitation.