Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs UNITED BANK LIMITED
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's First Appeal from Order (F.A.O.) on the grounds of being time-barred. The core legal question was whether an appeal filed against an order dismissing an objection petition in banking execution proceedings could be entertained when the appellant failed to file the appeal within the statutory limitation period and failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the period prescribed under the relevant banking legislation. The Court held that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot be permitted to benefit from their own negligence or misdeeds, and an appeal filed well after the limitation period without a valid justification for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.
- Can an appellate court entertain an appeal that is filed after the expiry of the statutory limitation period without sufficient cause for delay?
- Does the filing of a miscellaneous application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend the limitation period for filing an appeal against an earlier order?
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 21, Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997
ORDER
' TANIVR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 22-2-2000 whereby F.A.O. No,39 of 2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore being hopelessly time-barred.
2. Facts briefly are that a recovery suit was filed by the respondent-Bank against Messrs Sheikh Carpet Pvt. Ltd. Which was decreed by the Judge Banking Court No,4 Lahore vide his judgment dated 25-11-1998. The Bank filed execution application and the present petitioner filed objection petition before the learned Banking Court. The said objection petition was dismissed vide order dated 10-9-1999 being frivolous and unconvincing. Thereafter the petitioner remained dormant and moved a miscellaneous application under section 151, C.P.C. Before the Banking Court for the deletion of the property from the execution proceedings. The said application was dismissed on 2- 2-2000. Again the petitioner went into slumber and filed appeal against the order dated 10-9-1999 on 17-2-2000. This appeal is certainly time-barred as the order impugned was passed on 10-9- 1999 whereas certified copy thereof was obtained on 8-2-2000. The learned Division Bench while dismissing the appeal has given cogent reasons which are in the following terms:-- "4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the appellant-applicant and perused the record ourselves. It is admitted fact that the objection petition was dismissed vide order dated 10-9-1999. The appellant-applicant filed application for obtaining certified copy of the order dated 10-9-1999 on 8-2-2000 after the prescribed period for filing appeal under section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The appeal is highly time-barred and the learned counsel of the applicant-appellant failed to point out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is settled proposition of law that nobody should be allowed to get the benefit of his own misdeed negligence."
3. The learned counsel has not been able to show any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling interference by this Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.