RAEES AHMED vs ABDUL SHAFIQ and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which dismissed an intra-court appeal (H.C.A. No. 179 of 1996) on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner contended that the objection regarding limitation was raised belatedly by the court rather than at the time of filing, and argued that the High Court erred in refusing to allow an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court observed that the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained. The Court held that the High Court correctly refused to entertain the request for condonation of delay, as the appellant failed to provide cogent reasons for the delay at the appropriate time, noting that such an application appeared to be an afterthought to fill a procedural gap. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision to uphold the original decree.
- Can an appellate court refuse to entertain an application for condonation of delay if it is filed as an afterthought without cogent reasons?
- Is a court required to raise an objection regarding limitation at the time of filing an appeal?
- Does the failure to explain delay in filing an appeal justify the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---Petitioner, Raees Ahmed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13-5-2000, of a learned D.B. High Court of Sindh, whereby H.C.A. No,179 of 1996 was dismissed on the ground of limitation and the judgment and decree dated 16-9-1996 passed by learned Single Judge, in Administrative Suit No,444 of 1980, were affirmed.
2. It is admitted before us that the appeal was time-barred. Mr. K.W. Wahab, learned Advocate-on- Record, for the petitioner argued that objection regarding limitation was neither raised by the office at the time when appeal was presented nor at any subsequent stage and that said objection was only raised on 7-3-2000 when the appeal was fixed for regular hearing. He also submits that immediately thereafter, learned counsel offered to file an application, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, but so was not allowed with an observation that "Obviously, the action was just to fill up the gap. Had there been any cogent reason for the delay in filing the appeal, the appellant would have filed the application for condonation of delay alongwith the appeal, which was filed in 1996".
3. Thus, it is clear that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. Nothing is said about the merits of the case.
4. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Versus Ch. Anwaar-ul-Haq , Rana Javed Iqbal 2008 PTD 859