MAHMOOD KHAN and others vs MUHAMMAD ASHIQ and others
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption matter and is time-barred by forty days. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of the explanation provided by the petitioners for condonation of delay, namely an alleged oral assurance of an out-of-court settlement by the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the uncorroborated affidavit of one petitioner, unsupported by any independent outsider and lacking credibility given the parties' twenty-seven years of litigation and legal representation, fails to constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners had no case on merits as the underlying suit was never decreed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground of limitation as well as on merits, declining to grant special leave to appeal.
- Whether an uncorroborated affidavit of a petitioner regarding an oral out-of-court compromise constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Can a petition be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation when no credible explanation for the delay is furnished?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.---This petition for special leave to appeal relates to a pre-emption matter.
2. The petition is time-barred by forty days. Only reason given by the petitioners for the aforesaid delay is that the respondents deceitfully restrained the petitioners from making this petition in time by holding out an assurance that they will transfer the land to them (petitioners), out of Court and will settle the matter. According to the petitioners, it was a day before the making of the petition that they refused to compromise with the petitioners.
3. There is nothing to substantiate the above plea except the affidavit of one of the petitioners namely. Muhammad Khan Normally outsiders come forward to bring about compromise between the litigating parties and if negotiations are initiated by the parties themselves, help of others is secured to achieve the desired results. No such outsider has filed any affidavit to support the petitioner plea. Also we cannot persuade ourselves to believe that the petitioners who are litigating with the respondents for the last 27 years would let the period of limitation run out on the verbal promise of the respondents to patch up the matter by means of compromise if, at all; the petitioners had to wait, they should not have done so for forty long days. Even the period of limitation was sufficient to sort out the matter out of Court, if there was a sincere desire to do so. Be that as it may the petitioners should not have taken the risk of not filing the petition in time unless they were totally devoid of prudence. We feel that the petitioners, who are more than one in number, could not be trapped by the respondents as alleged by them, especially when they have been assisted by counsel all through, in the circumstances we do not accept the explanation furnished by the petitioners for long delay in making this petition and would like to dismiss it on the ground of limitation alone.
4. Even on merits, the petitioners have no case because, admittedly, the suit giving rise to the instant petition was never decreed.
5. Looked from any angle, the instant petition fails. Accordingly, we decline to accord special leave to appeal against the judgment and decree under challenge and dismiss the petition.