P L D 1997 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 18 (PLP)

The Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court accepted a writ petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 declaring them entitled to settle in any part of State of Jammu and Kashmir. Anther relief granted to them was in the shape of a direction that they shall not be deported. The said respondents came from that part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir which was occupied by force by India, towards the end of 1947 and continues to be so, on Indian Passports. The petition for leave to appeal is barred by time. The judgment was announced on 11th of December, 1996 while the petition for leave to appeal was filed on 1st of March, 1997. After deducting the period of Qne day which was spent in obtaining certified ~ copy of the judgment the petition is barred by 19 days. It is stated that the learned counsel who represented the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council before the High Court delayed intimation about announcement of the judgment and it is claimed that the petition is withir. time from the date of knowledge. Through an application it has been prayed that if it may be found that the petition is belated delay may be condoned. Admittedly the judgment was announced by the High Court in presence fi of the learned counsel for the parties. This Court has consistently been following the legal principle that knowledge of the counsel is knowledge of the client and (thus limitation starts running from the date of announcement of judgment if it is announced in presence of the counsel. In Allied Bank of Pakistan v. Chaudhry Amir Baz (Civil Appeal No.66 of 1996, decided on 1‑3‑1997) (PLD 1997 SC(AJ&K) 15) this Court rejected an application for condonation of delay which was based on the ground that the counsel did not inform within time that judgment had been announced. In that case it was observed by this Court as follows:‑‑ "It is well‑settled that knowledge of the counsel is knowledge of the client. The legal principle that it was duty of the client to find out the position of the case cannot be disputed." In Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi v. Azad Government and others 1993 SCR III and Rehmat Bibi v. Ghazanfar Hussian PLD 1983 SC(AJK) 25 applications for condonation of delay were dismissed on the same round, namely, that knowledge of the counsel is knowledge of the party. The view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on this point is also the same. In Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Sakina Bibi 1994 SCMR 223 a plea similar to the one being raised in the present case was advanced that the counsel did not promptly inform the result of the case to the party. The appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation by holding that:‑‑ "Even if the above explanation is to be taken at its face value, it would not constitute a sufficient cause for the condonation of long delay that has taken place in the instant case. The initial obligation was of the petitioner's to enquire about the decision in their appeal, or to arrange with their counsel to inform them about the decision if it is announced in their absence. Even if it be assumed that their counsel neglected to inform them that per se would not be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, when a valuable right has accrued to the respondents Nos. 1 to

3. We are not satisfied that the petitioners were diligent or took due care in the matter." When arguments were heard on 22nd of March, 1997 the learned counsel did not cite any authority in support of his application for condonation to advance the ends of justice he was given a period of seven days so that he could cite any decided case in support of his plea. Accordingly he has transmitted to the office a copy of a judgment of the Supreme Court of India which is reported as Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v Ms.Katiji and others AIR 1987 SC 1353. In presence of the previous judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court of Pakistan a judgment from Indian jurisdiction does not have even persuasive value. All the same I have gone through the report and find that the judgment does not advance the case of the petitioner. It is noted in para. 2 of the judgment that an appeal preferred by the State of Jammu and Kahsmir arising out of a decision enhancing compensation of acquired land 800 per cent. and also raised important questions of valuation was dismissed by the High Court as being barred by four days. In para.6 it was observed that "making a justice oriented approach" there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. From the judgment it is not clear what was the ground which persuaded the learned Judges to condone the delay. Therefore, it is not possible to infer any principle of law from the report. However, it is clear that the judgment does not lay down that delay should be condoned if the counsel neglects to inform his client that judgment has been announced. In light of the observations made above the explanation for delay as well as the application for condonation of delay are rejected. Consequently the petition for leave to appeal stands dismissed as being barred by time. A.A./169/SC(AJ&K)?? Leave refused.