ABDUL NASIR vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHANEWAL and others
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner against the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Appellate Court regarding the recovery of dowry articles. The core legal question is whether the explanation offered by the petitioner for the four-day delay in filing the petition constitutes sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the reasons provided in the application did not constitute sufficient cause, as the petitioner admitted his own negligence in approaching his counsel late. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the main petition was dismissed as barred by time. The key principle laid down is that a party's own admitted negligence and failure to act diligently do not constitute sufficient cause for the condonation of delay under the law.
- Does failure to receive a letter from counsel regarding the pronouncement of an order constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Can a petitioner claim the benefit of condonation of delay when admitting personal negligence in approaching their counsel?
- What constitutes sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in filing a petition before the court?
ORDER
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 9-7-2001, whereby Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner against concurrent findings of the Family Court, Khanewal vide judgment and decree dated 1-4-2000 and learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29-9-2000 for recovery of articles of dowry, has been dismissed.
2. This petition is barred by four days. Reason for delay disclosed in the application made by the petitioner is that his learned counsel, though informed him about the pronouncement of order in writ petition but he did not receive the letter. Petitioner also admitted in the application that his counsel also made an application for supply of certified copy of the order and other documents for him but he approached him late, on account of which the delay has been caused.
3. The reasons given in the application do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay as contemplated by law. The petitioner has admitted his negligence, therefore, he cannot be given any benefit. The application of the petitioner for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed.
Resultantly, the main petition is also dismissed as barred by time and .