1998 PLP 416 (MLD)

Representation

• Raja Ibrar Hussain for Petitioners.
• 2. As the petition for leave to appeal is time-barred by thirty days, it is not necessary to go into merits of the case. The petitioners have filed an application for the condonation of delay on the ground that they were informed by their counsel that the- period of limitation prescribed for filing a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is ninety days and, thus, the delay in filing the petition was caused due to the wrong advice of their counsel. Raja Ibrar Hussain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the matter pertaining to the condonation of delay should be liberally construed. He has further contended that in the instant case, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the wrong advice given to them by their counsel. He has cited a case reported as Rehmat Bibi v. Ghazanfar Hussain (PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 25), wherein the delay was condoned holding that as the copy of the decree-sheet was not supplied to the party concerned, despite the fact that it had applied for the same, they were entitled to the condonation of delay of the period failing between the preparation of the decree-sheet and its signing. This authority has no relevancy to the present case. It may be stated that in the instant case there is no affidavit on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners that he had given alleged advice to the petitioners. However, even if it is assumed that any such wrong advice was given, that is not a sufficient cause for condoning the delay, because a bona fide mistake may constitute a sufficient cause for the condonation of delay but wrong advice given by a counsel negligently does not. If the law on the point of limitation can be ascertained by resorting to relevant statute but the counsel gives a wrong advice due to his negligence, the delay cannot be excused; the party can claim compensation from his counsel. A reference may be made to a case reported as Mst. Mahmooda Begum v. Major Malik Muhammad Ishaq (1985 SCMR 890), wherein it has been held that ignorance of law on the part of a counsel cannot be condoned and the party concerned may seek redressal of his grievance against the counsel. Similarly, this Court in a case reported as Muhammad Ishaque Khan v. Muhammad Hayat Khan (1992 SCR 292), has held that a negligent advice of a counsel cannot be regarded as sufficient cause for condoning the delay; if the law on the point of limitation can easily be found out from the relevant statute, this would not be a case of bona fide mistake but a case of negligence. Similarly, in case reported as Masud Ahmad v. United Bank Limited (1992 SCR 98), the aforesaid principle was reiterated that a negligent advice on the part of a counsel would not constituted a valid ground for condonation of delay.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree