MARKET COMMITTEE, LAHORE through Administrator vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Market Committee, Lahore, against a judgment of the High Court. The petition was filed with a delay of 115 days. The petitioner sought condonation of this delay, arguing that the office miscalculated the limitation period and that the Additional Advocate-General, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the High Court, failed to inform the petitioner about the impugned judgment. The Supreme Court examined whether the alleged negligence or omission of a government law officer in communicating the outcome of a case constitutes sufficient grounds to condone a significant delay in filing an appeal. The Court held that the opposite party cannot be penalized for the omissions of the petitioner's legal representative. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions as time-barred, noting that the petitioner's remedy for such professional negligence lies elsewhere, not in shifting the burden of delay onto the opposing party. The judgment affirms the principle that a party is responsible for the conduct of its counsel and cannot seek condonation of delay based on its own representative's failure to communicate.
- Can a party seek condonation of delay based on the failure of its own counsel to inform it of a judgment?
- Should the opposite party be penalized for the omission of the petitioner's legal representative in communicating the status of a case?
- Does the failure of a government law officer to inform a client of a court decision constitute sufficient ground for condoning a delay in filing an appeal?
ORDER
' The above petitions are barred by 115 days. Mr. M.A. Zafar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner submits that the office has miscalculated the period for the purpose of computing limitation. He further contends that the petitioner was not represented before the High Court and the Additional Advocate-General, who entered appearance on Court's call, did not inform the petitioner about the passing of the impugned judgment. It is, however, not stated in the application for the condonation of delay that the learned Additional Advocate-General was not authorised to appear on behalf of the Market Committee.
2. Be that as it may, if the learned Additional Advocate-General had not informed the petitioner as to the fate of the writ petitions, the opposite-party cannot be penalised for his omission. The petitioner may, if so advised, take appropriate steps available under the law against the Law Officer.
3. With the above observation, all the petitions are dismissed being barred by time.