Syed ARSHAD MAHMOOD SHAH vs Mst. MAHPARA and another
This matter arises from a review petition filed by the petitioner seeking review of an earlier order of the court that dismissed the main petition for non-prosecution and on the ground of limitation. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant provided sufficient cause for the condonation of a 42-day delay in filing the main petition, given that the petitioner resided in the USA and time was allegedly consumed in obtaining a power of attorney. The court held that the explanation tendered was inadequate, as the law requires the explanation of delay for each and every day, and no specific dates regarding contact or intimation were provided. Consequently, the court found no legal infirmity in the previous order dismissing the time-barred petition and held that no case was made out for review. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a day-to-day explanation with specific dates and sufficient cause.
- Whether delay of each and every day must be explained when seeking condonation of delay?
- What constitutes sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in filing a petition from abroad?
- Does a review petition lie against an order dismissing a matter for limitation and non-prosecution when no legal infirmity is shown?
ORDER
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 21-3- 2000 of this Court by which the main petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and also on the point, of limitation.
2. The judgment impugned in the main petition was passed on 22-11-1999 whereas the said petition was filed on 14-3-2000. In the application made. In the main petition seeking condonation of delay, it has only been Stated that the petitioner was residing in USA and power of attorney was to be sent from there, therefore, the learned counsel took some time to receive the said power of attorney from the petitioner. Thereafter, some time was also required to prepare the case.
3. The law requires that delay of each and every day is to be explained. In this application, no date has been given on which the petitioner was contacted by the learned counsel in USA and as to on which date, he received intimation that the petition was to be filed.
4. No explanation has been given disclosing sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 42 days, therefore, the main on the point of limitation does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, no case has been made out for review.
5. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.