MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs Haji MUHAMMAD TUFAIL And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a regular first appeal as barred by time by 26 days. The Supreme Court considered whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay and whether the petitioner's oral plea that limitation laws were un-Islamic could be sustained without formal application or legal backing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal, and noted that the petition before the Supreme Court was itself barred by time without any proper application for condonation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined. The key principle laid down is that delay in filing legal proceedings must be properly explained through formal applications and sufficient cause, and vague or unsupported oral assertions regarding limitation will not suffice.
- Whether an oral request for condonation of delay without a formal application can be accepted by the court?
- Is a medical certificate showing treatment sufficient to constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay when it fails to prove total incapacitation?
- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a regular first appeal as barred by time?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.-- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated- 7.4.1999 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby R.F.A. No. 173/98 was dismissed as barred by time.
2. According to the office objection, the above petition is barred by time by 2 days. Mr. Rasheed Murtaza Qureshi, learned ASC appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has conceded that the petition was barred by 2 days, sought condonation of delay orally on the ground that the law of limitation in this context was un- Islamic.
3. This ground has not been taken up by the petitioner in any application for condonation of delay.
4. When faced with this situation, the learned counsel could not cite any law whereby the limitation imposed for filing of, the petition in this Court has been declared to be offending any Quranic Injunction and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).
5. The RFA giving rise to this petition has also been dismissed on the ground of Limitation wherein an application under section 5 of the limitation Act, 1908 has been filed which was dismissed by the learned Division Bench observing as under:-- "Learned counsel for the appellant states this reason that he could not file the present appeal, alongwith application for condonation of delay, a certificate from some Chaudhry Clinic of Dr. Sarwar Chaudhry, has been placed on the record which is dated 20.2.1998. According to this, the appellant has been under treatment of this Doctor since November, 1997 and was suffering from Lumbago seratic syndrome. However, from the said certificate as also from the contents of the application, it is not established that the appellant was suffering from such an ailment that he was totally confined to bed and was precluded from filing the appeal before this Court after the same has been returned by the lower Appellate Court. The averment that some new certified copies of the judgment and decree were applied and certain time was consumed in getting such copies is also baseless because in case of return of the appeal, no such documents were required. Without expressing our view regarding genuineness of the certificate, we find that no sufficient cause has made out in which delay of almost 26 days, be condoned. Besides, it is still questionable as to whether the appellant who had approached wrong forum is entitled to have the time spent before the lower Appellate Court excluded.
In view of the above; this application is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is also barred by time and is hereby dismissed."
6. The petitioner has not filed any application for condonation of the above delay though it is well- settled proposition of law that delay is to be explained in filing the petition for leave to appeal beyond the period of limitation. Reference in this context is made to: (1) Ahmad Din V. Mst. Rasul Bibi (P.L.D. 1968 S.C. 213), (2) Zahoor Elahi V. S. Fazal-ur-Rehman (1969 SCM R 274), (3) Mst. Allah Rakhi V.
Irshad Bibi (1994 SCM R 2244), (4) Muhammad Nawaz V. Abdus Salam (PLD 1997 S.C. 563) and (5)
Aftab Shahban Mirani V. President of Pakistan (1 998 SCMR 1863).
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also not been able to convince us that the learned Division Bench was not justified to have passed the impugned order declining the condonation of delay of 26 days in filing the R.F.A.
8. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Division Bench of the High Court was perfectly justified to have dismissed the R.F.A. Giving rise to this petition as barred by limitation by 26 days. Likewise even this petition is barred by 2 days for which no application for condonation of delay has been filed;
9. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.