1989SCMR1441 (PLP)
S. IQBAL HUSSAIN SHAH and another Appellants Versus Mst. AKHTARI BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1441 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Ghulam Mujaddid and Usman |
| Parties | S. IQBAL HUSSAIN SHAH and another Appellants Versus Mst. AKHTARI BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1441 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1441 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Ghulam Mujaddid and Usman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1441 (PLP) (S. IQBAL HUSSAIN SHAH and another Appellants Versus Mst. AKHTARI BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abu] Aasim Jafri (absent) for Appellants.
- Jehangir A. Jhoja, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hu Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st March, 1989.
- 1‑S.5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Appeal filed in Supreme Court beyond period of limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Sufficiency of cause‑ Reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay did not provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay‑‑Judgment of High Court was announced on 2‑8‑1986 while the appeal was filed on 20‑11‑1986‑‑Appellants claimed ignorance about the decision of the High Court‑‑Mere fact that decision was announced in summer vacations would not justify ignorance about the announcement of judgment of the High Court because when a judgment is to be announced, a copy of the cause list is sent invariably to the Advocate who is counsel in that particular case‑‑Appellant's assertion that after the copies had been made available, he came to the Court without wasting even a single day was not correct because petition for leave to appeal was filed on 20‑11‑1986, while copies as per assertion of appellant himself were made available to him on 5‑11‑1986‑‑No explanation was mentioned in petition for condonation of delay, as to what happened between 5‑11‑1986 and 20‑11‑1986‑‑Appeal was thus dismissed as barred by time
- This is hardly a sufficient explanation to accept. It is not stated in this petition as to when and how they came to know about the decision of the High Court. The mere fact that there were summer vacations would not justify ignorance about the announcement of the judgment by the High Court. The practice prevailing is known to all more particularly to the Advocates of the Lahore High Court that even during summer vacations when a judgment is to be announced, a copy of the cause list is sent invariably to the Advocate who is counsel in that particular case. The learned counsel for the appellants was confronted with this position but he was unable to give any reply. Even otherwise, although in the petition for condonation of delay, it is stated as referred to above, that after the copies had been made available the appellants came to this Court without wasting even a single day but this is not correct because the petition for leave to appeal was filed on 20‑11‑1986. There is not even a word in this petition as to what happened from 5‑11‑1986 to 20‑11‑1986. As the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to meet the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents, this appeal is dismissed as being time barred with no order as to costs.
Headnotes / Summary
Against the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court. Lahore, dated 2‑8‑1986 in Regular Second Appeal No.552 of 1975). 1‑S.5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Appeal filed in Supreme Court beyond period of limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Sufficiency of cause‑ Reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay did not provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay‑‑Judgment of High Court was announced on 2‑8‑1986 while the appeal was filed on 20‑11‑1986‑‑Appellants claimed ignorance about the decision of the High Court‑‑Mere fact that decision was announced in summer vacations would not justify ignorance about the announcement of judgment of the High Court because when a judgment is to be announced, a copy of the cause list is sent invariably to the Advocate who is counsel in that particular case‑‑Appellant's assertion that after the copies had been made available, he came to the Court without wasting even a single day was not correct because petition for leave to appeal was filed on 20‑11‑1986, while copies as per assertion of appellant himself were made available to him on 5‑11‑1986‑‑No explanation was mentioned in petition for condonation of delay, as to what happened between 5‑11‑1986 and 20‑11‑1986‑‑Appeal was thus dismissed as barred by time
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑ this appeal is by leave of this Court but it is subject to the objection of limitation that is why the learned counsel for the respondents got up and raised the aforesaid objection before the learned counsel for the appellants could open his case. The appellants filed a civil suit for possession as owners and also for pemanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment, dated 4‑10‑1974. Mst. Akhtari Begum filed an appeal. The District Judge accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 3‑4‑1975. A second appeal was filed by S. Iqbal Hussain Shah. This appeal was dismissed with costs throughout by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court by judgment, dated 2‑8‑1986. The contention of he leard‑ counse or the appellants is that the judgment of the High Court was announced on 2‑8‑1986. The appellants came to know of this on 27‑10‑1986. They applied for copy on 28‑10‑1986. The copy was made available on 5‑11‑1986. The petition for leave to appeal was filed m this Court on 20‑11‑1986. Learned counsel for the respondents in the first instance submitted that the reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay do not provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Before considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, we would like to advert to the ground taken in the petition for condonation of delay which is as follows:‑‑ "That the appeal (R.SA. No.552/1975) in question by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore, was decided during summer vacations i.e. on 2‑8‑1986. However, the petitioners were never informed, given a notice and conveyed about the same by the Court or their. counsel. They for the first time came to know about the impugned order on 27‑10‑1986, they without any further delay filed their application for the issuance of the copies on 28‑10‑1986, which were made available to them on 5‑11‑1986, hence this petition for condonation of delay, without wasting even a single day." This is hardly a sufficient explanation to accept. It is not stated in this petition as to when and how they came to know about the decision of the High Court. The mere fact that there were summer vacations would not justify ignorance about the announcement of the judgment by the High Court. The practice prevailing is known to all more particularly to the Advocates of the Lahore High Court that even during summer vacations when a judgment is to be announced, a copy of the cause list is sent invariably to the Advocate who is counsel in that particular case. The learned counsel for the appellants was confronted with this position but he was unable to give any reply. Even otherwise, although in the petition for condonation of delay, it is stated as referred to above, that after the copies had been made available the appellants came to this Court without wasting even a single day but this is not correct because the petition for leave to appeal was filed on 20‑11‑1986. There is not even a word in this petition as to what happened from 5‑11‑1986 to 20‑11‑1986. As the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to meet the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents, this appeal is dismissed as being time barred with no order as to costs. A.A./S‑265/S Appeal dismissed.