1968 SCMR 543 (PLP)
Nawab Syed MOHIUDDIN ALI KHAN-Petitioner Versus Mirza GHULAM SARWAR-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 543 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J |
| Parties | Nawab Syed MOHIUDDIN ALI KHAN-Petitioner Versus Mirza GHULAM SARWAR-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 543 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 543 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 543 (PLP) (Nawab Syed MOHIUDDIN ALI KHAN-Petitioner Versus Mirza GHULAM SARWAR-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 15th May 1967, in Second Civil Appeals Nos. 160, 161 and 162 of 1966). Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII, r. 1-Petition barred by time-Delay of each day to be explained-Petition unaccompanied by application for condonation-Petition dismissed-Constitution of Pakistani (1962), Art, 58 (3). Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-This order will dispose of three Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. K-188, K-189 and K-190, of 1967. As they are directed against the same judgment of the High Court passed in second appeals Nos. 160, 161 and 162 of 1966, they have been heard together. All these petitions are barred by time by 145 days. The judgment in the second appeals was delivered on 15-5-67. The petitioner's applications for certificates under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court was dismissed on 2-10-67. He then filed these petitions for special leave on 18-12-67. He has, however, not filed any application for condonation of this delay. The petitioner is, no doubt, entitled to get extension of time till 2-10-67, i.e. when his petitions for certificates were rejected, but he is required to explain each day's delay after the said date. This, he has not done. The petitioner who appears in person, has stated that he was under the impression that the time for filing these petitions would be reckoned from the order of the High Court refusing certificates. We do not consider this explanation at all satisfactory. He appears to be an educated person and hence his plea of ignorance cannot be accepted. These petitions ate, therefore, dismissed as time-barred. Petition dismissed.