MUHAMMAD AYYUB vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was submitted with a delay of 68 days. The core legal question was whether the failure of the Lahore High Court Bar Association's employee to deliver the computerized cause list to the petitioner's counsel constitutes a 'sufficient ground' for the condonation of delay under the law. The Supreme Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the main petition as time-barred. The Court held that the internal arrangement between the High Court and the Bar Association regarding the distribution of cause lists does not absolve the legal counsel of their professional responsibility. The Court established the principle that the failure of an employee of the Bar Association to deliver a cause list cannot be attributed to the Court or accepted as a valid excuse for delay. Because the counsel is a member of the Bar, the employee's failure is treated as an act of the counsel's agent, which does not satisfy the legal requirement for sufficient cause to condone a delay.
- Does the failure of a Bar Association employee to deliver a cause list constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
- Is the act of a Bar Association employee in failing to deliver a cause list attributable to the legal counsel as an agent?
- Can a petition be dismissed as time-barred if the delay is caused by an internal administrative failure of the Bar Association?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is barred by 68 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment was announced on 9-1-2002 for interim relief but he did not receive the cause list in which the said case was listed for announcement of judgment as such he could not come to know that the judgment had been announced, therefore, the delay took place.
2. Learned counsel when questioned frankly admitted that the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared in the computerized cause list of the High Court on 9-1-2002 when the judgment was pronounced but his plea was that the same was not delivered in the office of the learned counsel of the petitioner by the office-bearer of the Lahore High Court Bar Association as the arrangement about the distribution of cause list of the cases fixed before the High Court between the High Court Bar Association and the High Court was that the same will be distributed by the office-bearer of the High Court Bar Association.
3. In our view the act of the employee of the Lahore High Court Bar Association who shall be deemed to be the agent of the petitioner's learned cohnsel being Member of the Bar of not delivering the cause list in the office of the learned counsel for the petitioner in law cannot be considered as a ground in the matter of condonation of delay, therefore, the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation are not sufficient within the contemplation of sufficient ground as envisaged by law declared by the superior Courts.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the application made by the petitioner for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed as a consequence of which the main petition is also hereby dismissed as barred by time and .