AHMED DIN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs and others

This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a regular second appeal. The primary matter for consideration before the Supreme Court was an application for condonation of delay of 123 days in filing the petition, which was sought on the ground that the petitioner resided in a distant village and his counsel failed to inform him in time regarding the dismissal of his appeal. The core legal question addressed was whether the alleged negligence of a counsel in communicating the decision to his client constitutes a sufficient ground for condoning a substantial delay in filing an appeal. The Supreme Court held that the matter of communication between a client and their counsel cannot be used to penalize the opposite party, and that no sufficient ground existed for condoning the delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal due to being time-barred, establishing the principle that a client is bound by the conduct of their counsel and that counsel's negligence alone does not warrant the condonation of delay against the opposing party.