AMJAD ALI and another vs Messrs M.C.B. and another
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals against the dismissal of their applications to set aside an ex parte decree passed by a Banking Court. The petitioners, who were guarantors in a banking transaction, sought to challenge the decree but filed their petitions before the Supreme Court with a delay of 425 days. The petitioners argued that the delay should be condoned because they believed the decretal amount had been satisfied through the adjustment of cash security deposited by co-accused persons in separate criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court rejected this explanation, noting that the judgment impugned was passed long before the alleged adjustment occurred, and the adjustment itself was subsequently set aside by the High Court. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient cause for the substantial delay. The applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, and the main petitions were consequently dismissed as time-barred.
- Does a belief that a decretal amount has been satisfied through collateral criminal proceedings constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained when it is filed with a significant delay of 425 days without a valid explanation?
' MU.NIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment we propose to decide both the petitions involving common question of law and facts.
2. The applications filed by the petitioners for setting aside ex parte decree of Banking Court winch is against them as guarantors, were dismissed on 7-4-2000 againlt which they filed appeals before the Lahore High Court which have been dismissed through the Impugned judgment, dated 19-10- 2000, against which leave is sought.
3. Both these petitions are barred by time by 425 days. The petitioners have filed applications for condonation of delay in which it has been statetd that criminal proceedings in respect of the documents allegedly executed by the petitioners as guarantors against respondent No,2 loanee and a Bank Officer were pending in which the said respondent and the Bank Officer co-accused person were granted bail against cash security amounting to Rs,2,50,000 each which they deposited, which was adjusted by the said Court against the loan on 30-7-2001, therefore, the petitioners felt satisfied that the decretal amount had already been paid to the Bank-decree- holders, therefore, there was no need to file appeal.
4. We are afraid, if this ground can be held to be sufficient ground, for the judgment impugned in this case was passed on 19-10-2000 whereas the said adjustment was made on 30-7-2001 which too was net aside by the High Court therefore, there is no explanation as to why the petitioners against whom ex parte decree had been passed and their applications for setting aside the same had been dismissed, should not have approached this Court within period of limitation.
5. The applications for condonation of delay are hereby dismissed, as a consequence of which the main petitions are also dismissed as barred by time and .