1976 PLP 173 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,
| Citation | 1976 PLP 173 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 173 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 173 (SCMR)?
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: 1976 PLP 173 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Advocate-on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 7th January 1976
- In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that in the first instance there was sonic confusion as to the date on which the High Court judgment was delivered, namely, whether it was 2‑5‑75 or 2‑6‑75. Even when it became clear that the judgment of the High Court was dated the 2nd of June 1975, the petitioner was unable to engage an Advocate‑on-Record for the purpose of filing this petition, as in the meantime he had fallen ill with a heart ailment. He instructed his son to do the needful, but was informed that the matter had already become time‑barred. The petitioner accordingly gave up the matter, but in the third week of September 1975, he found that the matter was not barred by time as the judgment of the High Court was dated 2‑6‑75 and not 2‑5‑75. It is submitted that the delay was thus caused by the confusion as to the date of the judgment and the indisposition of the petitioner. In support of this last ground a medical certificate has also been appended with the application showing that the petitioner received medial treatment from 5‑7‑75 to 20‑9‑75. The petition was flied on the 29th of September 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court made on 2nd June 1975 in W. P. No. 376‑R of 1971).
S. 5
‑Condonation of delay.‑‑Narration of facts heating on petitioner s illness indicating petitioner not being unable to give instruc tions for filing petition in time‑‑‑ Each day's delay also not explained Petition for condonation of delay dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑‑This petition is barred by 82 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that in the first instance there was sonic confusion as to the date on which the High Court judgment was delivered, namely, whether it was 2‑5‑75 or 2‑6‑
75. Even when it became clear that the judgment of the High Court was dated the 2nd of June 1975, the petitioner was unable to engage an Advocate‑on-Record for the purpose of filing this petition, as in the meantime he had fallen ill with a heart ailment. He instructed his son to do the needful, but was informed that the matter had already become time‑barred. The petitioner accordingly gave up the matter, but in the third week of September 1975, he found that the matter was not barred by time as the judgment of the High Court was dated 2‑6‑75 and not 2‑5‑
75. It is submitted that the delay was thus caused by the confusion as to the date of the judgment and the indisposition of the petitioner. In support of this last ground a medical certificate has also been appended with the application showing that the petitioner received medial treatment from 5‑7‑75 to 20‑9‑
75. The petition was flied on the 29th of September 1975. We regret we are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner. Each day of the delay beyond the prescribed period has to be explained, but this has not been done. From the narration of facts bearing on the petitioner's illness, it becomes clear that he was not unable to give instructions for the filing of the present petition in time. We would! accordingly dismiss this petition as barred by time. Petition dismissed.