1999 PLP 1307 (SCMR)
Mian GHULAM RASOOL BODLA — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1307 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | Mian GHULAM RASOOL BODLA — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1307 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1307 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1307 (SCMR) (Mian GHULAM RASOOL BODLA — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, 11-7-1997 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Writ Petition No.2198 of 1996).
Art. 185(3)
Delay in filing petition for leave to appeal
Condonation-- Delay of sixty days was sought to be condoned by petitioner on three grounds; firstly that he could not contact his counsel because of lack of telephone facility with him; secondly, that petitioner was confined to bed, and thirdly, that he had to arrange for funds for engaging counsel
Lack of facility of telephone with petitioner's counsel, was not a ground for condonation of delay, because it was duty of petitioner to pursue his case diligently and he alone was responsible for negligence of his counsel; ground of confinement of petitioner to r bed was also no ground to condone delay, because he could not be permitted to take advantage of his bald statement in that respect, in absence of any proof on record and paucity of funds, would not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed being ' barred by time in absence of any valid ground for condonation of delay.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 11-7-1997 passed in Writ Petition No.2198 of 1996 by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur:
2. The petition is admittedly barred by 60 days. Delay is sought to be condoned on the following grounds:--
4. That unfortunately the petitioner's counsel Raja Suhail never informed the petitioner regarding the dismissal of his writ petition on 11-7-1997. The petitioner also could not contact his counsel because of lack of facility of telephone with the petitioner's counsel. Since he was confined to bed he could not personally visit Bahawalpur and contact his counsel with the result that the petitioner could not gain knowledge regarding the disposal of his appeal.
5. That it was only on 7-10-1997 that the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of his appeal when he visited Bahawalpur and contacted his counsel. The petitioner immediately applied for the copy of the order without any loss of time on 9-10-1997 which was delivered to him on 10-10-1997.
6. That thereafter the petitioner had to arrange for the funds for engaging a counsel which he could only manage by the end of October, 1997. When funds were arranged the petitioner engaged his counsel and filed the petition in this Honourable Court."
3. We are afraid the opposite party cannot be penalized for the alleged negligence of the petitioner's counsel in the High Court. Likewise, the plea raised by the petitioner that he could not contact his counsel because of lack of facility of telephone with the petitioner's counsel is hardly a ground for condonation of delay. It was the duty of the petitioner to pursue his case diligently and he alone is responsible for the negligence of his counsel. As to the p, contention that he was confined to bed, therefore, he could not personally proceed to Bahawalpur and contact his counsel, suffice it to say that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his bald statement in the absence of any proof on record. As to the plea that the petitioner had to arrange for the funds for engaging a counsel, suffice it to say that paucity of funds does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay.
4. The petition is hopelessly barred by time. No valid ground exists for condonation. Dismissed being time-barred. H.B.T./G-27/S Petition dismissed