1997 PLP 959 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑ Time‑barred appeal filed by Government‑‑‑Inordinate' delay not explained‑‑ Government not entitled to be treated differently in matter of condonation of delay‑‑‑Appeal against judgment of Service Tribunal barred by 57 days‑-‑Ground taken in application for condonation of delay was that matter in question renfained pending for discussion and consideration between relevant Government Department which caused delay in filing petition for leave to appeal‑‑ Justification‑‑‑Government being party to lis, could not claim to be treated in any manner differently from ordinary litigant, so far as limitation was concerned‑‑‑Government in fact, enjoys unusual facilities for preparation and conduct of their cases; that if in spite of such facilities Government could not comply with requirement of law of limitation, then it was for it to take steps to have that law changed, and that each day's delay must properly and satisfactorily be explained‑‑‑Time said to have been spent during which various Authorities were examining the matter with a view to decide whether appeal should or should not be filed could not be excused‑‑‑Vague and general assertion having been made in condonation application and delay of 57 days having not been duly and properly explained, there was no justification for condoning inordinate delay‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pir Ahmad Khan 1981 SCMR 37 rel. Raja Muhammad Bashir, Dy. A.G. and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th November, 1995. ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal is barred by 57 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the ground taken is that the matter "remained pending for discussion and consideration between Finance Division, Establishment Division and the Military Accountant‑General" which caused the delay in tiling the petition in this Court. Such a plea has never been accepted as a valid ground for condonation of delay. Refer Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Pir Ahmed Khan 1981 SCMR 37 wherein it was held: "The time said to have been spent during which the various authorities were examining the matter with a view to decide whether an appeal should or should not be filed cannot be excused. This Court has repeatedly laid down that so far as the limitation is concerned, the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant. In fact, the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its resources are much larger than those possessed by ordinary litigants, if in spite of these facilities the Government cannot comply with the requirement of the law of limitation, then it Pis for it to take steps to have that law". It Was further observed in the afore‑noted case that according to the law, each day's delay must properly and satisfactorily be explained and the excuse that the matter got delayed because of its having remained under examination at different departmental levels is never a valid ground for condonation of delay. In the instant case, a vague and general assertion has been made in the condonation application and the delay of 57 days has not been duly and properly explained. In the circumstances, there being no good ground for condoning the inordinate delay the leave petition is dismissed as time‑barred A.A./F‑403/S Leave refused.