MARKET COMMITTEE, SHORKOT ROAD through Administrator, District Jhang
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was submitted with a delay of six days. The petitioner, the Market Committee, Shorkot Road, sought condonation of this delay, arguing that it was unaware of the dismissal of its previous Writ Petition No. 1101 of 1982 until it received an uncertified copy of the judgment on November 3, 1999, and that subsequent administrative processing caused the delay. The core legal question was whether the lack of communication between a party and its counsel regarding the status of a case constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The Court held that the petitioner's plea did not constitute a valid ground for condonation. The key principle laid down is that it is the professional duty of a counsel to keep their client informed about the status of legal proceedings, and an opposing party cannot be penalized or prejudiced due to the negligent handling of a case by the petitioner or their legal counsel.
- Does a lack of communication between a client and their counsel regarding the status of a case constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Can a party be penalized for the negligent handling of a case by the opposing party's counsel?
ORDER
' The petition is barred, by 6 days. Delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that the Market Committee, Shorkot was not aware of the dismissal of Writ Petition No,1101 of 1982 and it came to their knowledge on 3-11-1999 when the uncertified copy of the judgment, dated 11-10-1999 was sent to the Market Committee and therefore, some time was consumed in processing the case.
2. We are afraid, the above plea hardly constitutes a valid ground for condonation of delay. It was the duty of the counsel of the Market Committee to have informed the petitioner about the dismissal of the Writ Petition and the opposite-party cannot be penalised for the negligent handling of the case by the petitioner or its counsel.
3. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed being time-barred.