MUHAMMAD ARIF SAEED vs SHAMIM-UL-HAQ
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court that set aside an appellate dismissal of a time-barred suit and remanded it for fresh decision after condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in condoning a prolonged delay in filing the appeal where the delay was largely attributable to the pendency of a review petition before the trial court. The Supreme Court held that since the trial court took an inordinate time in deciding the review application and there was no contribution to the delay by the opposing party, the High Court rightly exercised its discretion to condone the delay in furtherance of the policy of law that disputes should be decided on merits rather than technicalities. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the remand order.
- Whether the High Court is justified in condoning a long delay in filing an appeal where the delay in deciding a review petition was caused by the trial court itself?
- Should legal disputes be decided on merits rather than on technicalities such as limitation?
- Whether special leave to appeal should be granted against an order of the High Court remanding a suit for fresh decision after condoning delay?
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.---By means of the instant petition, the petitioner, Muhammad Arif Saeed, seeks leave to file appeal against judgment dated the 1st December, 1993 passed by a learned Single Bench of the Lahore High Court while functioning at the Multan Bench thereof, by which it set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below in a suit brought by the respondent, Shamim-ul-Haq against the petitioner and remanded the suit to the Senior Civil Judge, Mazaffargarh for fresh decision.
2. Briefly stated, the facts culminating in the petition in hand are that the said suit was filed on 18th May, 1982. It was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 23rd June, 1986. The respondent went in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. His appeal was ......Cepted by an Additional District Judge on 5th May, 1987 and the suit remanded for re-decision. The petitioner assailed the order of remand through F.A.O. No.54 of 1987 before the said learned High Court but without success. While dismissing the F.A.O., the learned High Court made an observation to the effect that the decree having been passed in favour of the petitioner before 31st July, 1986, he would be within his right to defend the decree in subsequent proceedings.
3. In the post-remand proceedings the learned Trial Court did not deal with the matter in terms of the remand order and on merits. Instead, it dismissed the suit on 20th November, 1988 in the following words:-- "Admittedly in this suit for pre-emption no decree has still been passed and the requirements of Talabs as in Islam have not been fulfilled. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this suit cannot be decreed. The suit filed by the plaintiff fails which is accordingly dismissed."
4. Being of the view that the observation of the learned Trial Court that "no decree has still been passed" was fallacious, the petitioner sought review of the judgment and decree resulting in the dismissal of his suit. Strangely enough, the application for review remained pending for more than three years and was eventually dismissed on 30th June, 1992. He then preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Muzaffargarh and also made an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated the 20th November, 1988 but the learned District Judge did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as time-barred by means of judgment dated the 28th June, 1993. The petitioner, therefore, went in revision before the High Court.
5. His revision petition was decided by Mr. Justice Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh (as he then was). The view formed by the learned Judge was that as the Trial Court had taken a very long time in deciding the review petition, which was made by the petitioner for rectification of a patent error on the face of the record, it was a fit case for condonation of delay. The revision petition was, therefore, accepted and the suit remanded for fresh decision keeping in view the directions contained in the first remand order.
6. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was inordinate delay in the filing of the appeal and, therefore, it was rightly dismissed by the learned District Judge on the ground of limitation. According to him, the learned High Court had erred in law in condoning delay which was of years and not of months or days.
7. As indicated above, it was the Trial Court which was responsible for deciding the review application after some years. Learned counsel has not pointed out anything to show that the respondent had, in any way, contributed to the said delay. It is also the policy of law that legal disputes should be decided on merits and not on the basis of technicalities. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the order of the learned High Court which is sought to be challenged by means of an appeal.
8. Resultantly, special leave to appeal against the order of learned High Court is not allowed and the petition in hand is dismissed.