2024 PLP 1135 (CLC)
KHALIL AHMED through Attorney — Appellant Versus DISTRICT REGISTRAR FOR REGISTRATION and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2024 PLP 1135 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHALIL AHMED through Attorney — Appellant Versus DISTRICT REGISTRAR FOR REGISTRATION and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 1135 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 1135 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 1135 (CLC) (KHALIL AHMED through Attorney — Appellant Versus DISTRICT REGISTRAR FOR REGISTRATION and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5
Scope
Sole ground on which the delay was sought to be condoned was that due to some symptoms of Covid-19, the attorney had been advised by his doctor to observe quarantine, not permitting him to enter the premises of the court
Attorney, in support of his contention, had filed a medical certificate purportedly issued to him, however, neither the name of the Attorney was mentioned in said certificate nor period / dates of quarantine had been mentioned
Moreover, the application for condonation of delay and its supporting affidavit were silent as to why the appellant himself was unable to present the appeal while his Attorney was observing quarantine
Appellant had not even filed his own affidavit explaining his disability for filing the appeal within time, therefore, the burden to explain the delay of each and every day had not been discharged by the appellant and/or his Attorney
Thus, the delay of four days in filing the appeal could not be condoned, for having been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, meanwhile valuable right had been created in favour of the respondents, and no sufficient cause was found for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation
Application for condonation of delay was dismissed, resultantly the appeal was also dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Through the listed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the appellant has prayed that the delay of four (04) days in filing the instant appeal be condoned. The application is supported by the affidavit of the appellant's attorney Zafar Riazuddin Bari. The sole ground on which the delay is sought to be condoned is that due to some symptoms, the attorney had been advised by his doctor to observe quarantine during the Covid-19 pandemic ; and, his counsel had advised him that he will not be permitted to enter the premises of this Court due to such symptoms. In support of his contention, the attorney has filed a medical certificate dated 28.08.2001 purportedly issued to him. It is significant to note that the name of the attorney is not mentioned in the medical certificate filed and relied upon by him. The period / dates during which the attorney was purportedly under quarantine have not been disclosed by him. Moreover, the application and its supporting affidavit are silent as to why the appellant was unable to present the appeal within time if his attorney was observing quarantine. The appellant has also not filed his own affidavit explaining his disability for filing the appeal within time. Therefore, the burden to explain the delay of each and every day has not been discharged by the appellant and or his attorney. In the above circumstances, the delay cannot be condoned in view of Imtiaz Ali v. Atta Muhammad and another PLD 2008 SC 462, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the appeal, having been filed after one day of the prescribed period of limitation, had created valuable right in favour of the respondents, and no sufficient cause was found for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. Even the delay of only one day was not condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited case. Accordingly, the listed application is dismissed and resultantly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. MQ/K-4/Sindh Appeal dismissed.