1968 SCMR 292 (PLP)
MALIK ABDUL NABI-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS -Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 292 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MALIK ABDUL NABI-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS -Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 292 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 292 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 292 (PLP) (MALIK ABDUL NABI-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS -Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- D. M. Awan, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 27th November 1967, in Review Application No. 37 of 1967). (a) Letters Patent (Lahore), CJ. 10-Dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal-Petition for review of order barred by time-Bare statement of petitioner appellant that he was unaware of the date on which his appeal dismissed-Not enough for condonation of delay-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLVII, r.1. (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII, r. 1-Petition to High Court seeking review of its order dismissing Letters Patent Appeal-High Court dismissing review petition as time-barred Petition to Supreme Court for special leave to appeal-Must be accompained by application for condonation of delay in case petition for special leave is directed not only against order of High Court dismissing review but its order dismissing Letters Patent as well.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-This petition has been filed for special leave to appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan in a review petition, The review by this application was sought of an order passed to a Letters Patent Appeal by the same learned Judges on the 4th of April 1966. The review application was thus clearly out of time but condonation of the delay was sought on the ground that the petitioner was unaware of the fact that his Letters Patent Appeal had been dsimissed. He alleged that even his counsel, who appeared in the Letters Patent Appeal, had not informed him that the appeal had been dismissed. It was only when he had taken the brief from him and entrusted it to the learned counsel now appearing for him that it was discovered that the Letters Patent Appeal had been dismissed on the 4th of April 1966. The learned Judges of the High Court did not believe this story and hence refused to condone the delay. No application for the condonation of the delay of the petition for special leave to appeal has been filed, because learned counsel contends that the petition is within time from the date of the dismissal of the review petition and since leave is being sought to appeal only from the order refusing to entertain the review petition the question of delay does not arise. If this is so, then we have no difficulty in coming 'to the conclusion that no ground has been made out at all for the grant of special leave. The High Court has, in our view, properly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay in the filing of the review petition. The story put forward by the petitioner was, on the face of it, unbelievable and there is nothing A to support it apart from the petitioner's own ipse &Alt. It cannot be accepted that the learned counsel, who appeared for the Petitioner in the Letters Patent Appeal, did not inform him that his Letters Patent Appeal had been dismissed. It appears that he was actually heard by the Letters Patent Bench before the appeal was dismissed and his presence is duly recorded in the order itself. On the other hand, if this petition is directed against the order of the Letters Patent Bench then it is clearly barred by time and since no applicationr condonation of delay has been filed it cannot be said that there was any sufficient excuse for not coming to this Court in time. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.