Mian GHULAM RASOOL BODLA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR and another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which was barred by 60 days. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient and valid grounds existed to condone the substantial delay in filing the petition. The Supreme Court held that the petition was hopelessly barred by time and that no valid ground existed for condonation. The Court laid down the key principles that a litigant cannot penalize the opposite party for the alleged negligence of their counsel, that failure to maintain contact with counsel due to lack of telephone facilities or illness without evidentiary proof does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation, and that paucity of funds is likewise not a valid ground for condoning delay in legal proceedings.
- Whether the negligence of a petitioner's counsel constitutes a valid ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal?
- Does the lack of telephone facilities to contact counsel justify the condonation of delay?
- Whether paucity of funds is a valid ground for condonation of delay?
- Can a petitioner take advantage of a bald statement regarding illness without proof on record for the purpose of condoning delay?
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 11-7- 1997 passed in Writ Petition No,2198 of 1996 by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur.
2. The petition is admittedly barred by 60 days. Delay is sought to be condoned on the following grounds:-- "4. That unfortunately the petitioner's counsel Raja Suhail never informed the petitioner regarding the dismissal of his writ petition on 11-7-1997. The petitioner also could not contact his counsel because of lack of facility of telephone with the petitioner's counsel. Since he was confined to bed he could not personally visit Bahawalpur and contact his counsel with the result that the petitioner could not gain knowledge regarding the disposal of his appeal.
5. That it was only on 7-10-1997 that the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of his appeal when he visited Bahawalpur and contacted his counsel. The petitioner immediately applied for the copy of the order without any loss of time on 9-10-1997 which was delivered to him on 10-10-1997.
6. That thereafter the petitioner had to arrange for the funds for engaging a counsel which he could only manage by the end of October, 1997.
' When funds were arranged the petitioner engaged his counsel and filed the petition in this Honourable Court."
3. We are afraid the opposite party cannot be penalized for the alleged negligence of the petitioner's counsel in the High Court. Likewise, the plea raised by the petitioner that he could not contact his counsel because of lack of facility of telephone with the petitioner's counsel is hardly a ground for condonation of delay. It was the duty of the petitioner to pursue his case diligently and he alone is responsible for the negligence of his counsel. As to the contention that he was confined to bed, therefore, he could not personally proceed to Bahawalpur and contact his counsel, suffice it to say that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his bald statement in the absence of any proof on record. As to the plea that the petitioner had to arrange for the funds for engaging a counsel, suffice it to say that paucity of funds does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay.
4. The petition is hopelessly barred by time. No valid ground exists for condonation. Dismissed being time-barred.
Cited by 3 cases
- Saleem Khan vs Mst. Zeenat, etc 2021 [M] C L R 1257
- SALEEM KHAN Versus Mst. ZEENAT 2023 CLC 1217
- PEERAL and others vs THE STATE and others 2003 MLD 1698