MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs ABDUS SALAM and anothers
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan with an eighteen-day delay, prompting the petitioner to seek condonation of delay. The petitioner argued that the time between the completion of the certified copies by the Copying Agency on 15-07-1996 and their actual collection on 06-11-1996 should be excluded as 'time requisite' under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908, because the agency failed to intimate him of their completion. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the petition as time-barred. The Court held that the petitioner acted with utter negligence by taking almost four months to collect the copies without providing a reasonable explanation. The Court distinguished prior precedents, establishing the principle that the exclusion of time for obtaining copies is not an absolute right where a party exhibits inordinate delay and negligence in collecting the prepared copies.
- Can the entire period between the preparation of certified copies and their actual collection by a party be excluded as 'time requisite' under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 if the party acted negligently?
- Whether the failure of a Copying Agency to intimate a party about the completion of certified copies automatically condones an inordinate delay of several months in collecting those copies?
- Under what circumstances can a petitioner claim the benefit of 'time requisite' for obtaining copies to overcome a limitation bar?
- Section 12, Limitation Act 1908
1. ' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.--This petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 9-6-1996 is barred by 18 days. Petitioner seeks condonation of delay on the ground that the certified copies were prepared and completed on .15-7-1996 but the Copying Agency gave no intimation to him with the result that he collected the copies on 6-11-1996.
2. According to the learned counsel, the entire time spent until the collection of copies by the petitioner would be a "time requisite" for obtaining the copies within the meaning of section 12 of the Limitation Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi 1973 SCM R 555 and Fazal Rahman v.
3. Rahim Gul and others 1981 SCM R 1258. Both these cases are distinguishable on facts because in the first case, the impugned order of the High Court was passed on 7th September, 1964; application for certified copy of the order was made on the same day; Copy was made ready on 14th October, 1964, stamp was supplied on 15th October, 1964 on which date the copy was certified and the copy was supplied on 17th October, 1964. This shows that the petitioner in the precedent case was actively pursuing the matter and the copy of the order was supplied to him within three days of its having been made ready, while in the instant case petitioner took almost four months in collecting the copies and no reasonable explanation has been given for this inordinate delay. Petitioner appears to have acted with utter negligence. Similarly in the second case, too, the copies of the judgment and decree were made ready on 27th of June, 1968 and were delivered on 12th of July, 1968 i,e, within 15 days. As observed above, petitioner in the present case acted negligently and, therefore, we are not pursuaded, in the peculiar facts of the case, to allow his request for condonation of delay. His application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed with the result that the petition for leave to appeal stands dismissed as time-barred.
Cited by 9 cases
- Muhammad Saeed vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited 2023 PLC (C.S.) 517
- Muhammad Hanif vs Anjuman-E-Imamia (Registered Society), through Patron and another 2020 CLC 2080
- Dr. Rana MUHAMMAD AKHLAQ vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Cabinet Division and others 2015 CLC 397
- Dr. Rana MUHAMMAD AKHLAQ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Cabinet Division 2015 PLC(CS) 568
- SHAHZAD HASSAN BHATTI and 6 others vs PLATINUM COMMERCIAL BANK 2005 CLD 912
- MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs Haji MUHAMMAD TUFAIL And Another K.L.R. 2002 S.C. 67
- MUHAMMAD ZABIR vs Haji MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another 2003 SCMR 1334
- AFTAB SHAHBAN MIRANI vs PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and others 1998 SCMR 1863
- Muhammad Saeed vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited & 2022 IHC 100