Muhammad Yousaf Zaheem Khan and others vs Shahab Din and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the High Court passed in a writ petition. The core legal question concerns whether a delay of 31 days in filing the petition for leave to appeal can be condoned solely on the ground of possessing a prima facie good case and alleged lack of knowledge of the High Court's decision, without explaining each day's delay. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners themselves invoked the writ jurisdiction, it was their duty to track the proceedings, and they cannot take advantage of their own wrong or claim condonation without accounting for the delay. The petition was dismissed as time-barred and leave to appeal was refused, establishing that a party must provide a day-to-day explanation for delay rather than relying merely on the merits of the case.
- Can a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal be condoned solely on the ground of having a good prima facie case?
- Is a party who invoked writ jurisdiction required to keep track of court proceedings to avoid limitation issues?
- Does lack of knowledge of the High Court's decision constitute a sufficient ground for condoning delay without daily explanation?
ORDER
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- At the very out set the petition is barred by 31 days in that the impugned order of the High Court was passed on 25.10.2001 in the writ petition field by the petitioners whereas instant petition for leave to appeal was filed on 24.1.2002. Office has objected to the entertainment of the petition as being barred by 31 days.
2. Petitioners, in their application for condonation of delay , instead of explaining and accounting for each day's delay agitated that they have a good prima facie case they would suffer in separable loss if the delay is not condoned. On our query, learned counsel attempted to explain that the petitioners did not know about the decision of the writ petition. Be that as it may, since the petitioners themselves had invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it was for them to keep a track of the proceedings and to know as to when was the petition listed for hearing and disposed of petitioners, in our view, cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. No other ground has been agitated in support of this application, which is completely misconceived and ill founded.
3. Resultantly, this petition, being barred by time, dismissed and leave to appeal refused. 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.