2011 SCMR 1424 (PLP)
MUNIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus CHANGAZ KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1424 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sair Ali and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | MUNIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus CHANGAZ KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1424 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 1424 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Sair Ali and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1424 (PLP) (MUNIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus CHANGAZ KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Farid Sanotra, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 2011.
- MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---Seeking leave against the impugned judgment dated 15-4-2008 dismissing petitioner's application for restoration of his R.S.A. No. 27 of 1993 dismissed for non-prosecution, the following facts were admitted by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that;
- 2. Learned Advocate Supreme Court, however, endeavoured to strenuously argue that the limitation as well as the condonation are matters of technicalities which should be disregarded by the Courts while administering justice. He has referred to the case of "Anwar Khan v. Fazal Manan" (2010 SCMR 973).
- 3. Having heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court, we do not subscribe to his view. The above judgment does not apply to I the facts of the present case where the petitioner had been admittedly negligent and indolent in prosecuting his second appeal, filing of the application for restoration and failing to properly explain his delay. The petitioner also failed to particularize his application to seek condonation of delay. He neither raised any plausible ground nor did he disclose the date and day of his knowledge of the dismissal of the RSA. Such an indolence cultivates a right in the opposite party which, as repeatedly held by this Court, should not be lightly dislocated to maintain judicial balance.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 15-4-2008 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Mutlan in RSA No. 27 of 1993).
O.XLI, R.19
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 & Art. 168
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Application for re-admission of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Delay of one (1) year and ten (10) days, condonation of
Petitioner's plea that limitation and condonation of delay being matters of technicalities were liable to be ignored by courts while administering justice
Dismissal of such application by High Court
Petitioner had not particularized in application for condonation of delay by raising any plausible ground or disclosing date and day of his knowledge about dismissal of appeal
Such an indolence would cultivate a right in opposite party, which could not be lightly dislocated, to maintain judicial balance
Supreme Court repelled such plea and dismissed petition for leave to appeal. Anwar Khan v. Fazal Manan 2010 SCMR 973 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.
Seeking leave against the impugned judgment dated 15-4-2008 dismissing petitioner's application for restoration of his R.S.A. No. 27 of 1993 dismissed for non-prosecution, the following facts were admitted by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that; (i) RSA No. 27 of 1993 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 22-6-2006. (ii) Application for restoration thereto was made after the period of limitation on 12-4-2008 with a delay of about one year and ten months. (iii) Application for restoration was accompanied with an application for the condontion of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act wherein date and day-wise explanation for the delay was not particularized.
2. Learned Advocate Supreme Court, however, endeavoured to strenuously argue that the limitation as well as the condonation are matters of technicalities which should be disregarded by the Courts while administering justice. He has referred to the case of "Anwar Khan v. Fazal Manan" (2010 SCMR 973).
3. Having heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court, we do not subscribe to his view. The above judgment does not apply to I the facts of the present case where the petitioner had been admittedly negligent and indolent in prosecuting his second appeal, filing of the application for restoration and failing to properly explain his delay. The petitioner also failed to particularize his application to seek condonation of delay. He neither raised any plausible ground nor did he disclose the date and day of his knowledge of the dismissal of the RSA. Such an indolence cultivates a right in the opposite party which, as repeatedly held by this Court, should not be lightly dislocated to maintain judicial balance.
4. In view thereof, this petition has no merit and is dismissed. S.A.K./M-54/SC Petition dismissed.