1968 SCMR 314 (PLP)
MUBARAK MAND-Appellant Versus PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 314 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | MUBARAK MAND-Appellant Versus PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 314 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 314 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 314 (PLP) (MUBARAK MAND-Appellant Versus PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad, and Dr. Nasiin Hassan Shah, Senior Advocates Supreme Court instructed by Mushtaq Ahmad, Senior Attorney for Appellant.
- Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (F. M. Anwar', Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Mahboob Ahmad, Attorney for Respondent No. 9.
- On examining the particulars, we find that the petitioner has failed to establish that the delay was due to circumstances beyond his control. The judgment of the High Court having been delivered on the 30th October 1963, application for a copy was made on the 9th November 1963. In the application for condona tion of the delay, it is said, in careful language that "it was made in the name of my Counsel, namely, Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate." The further averments in the application are:-
- Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Bhatti the Advocate has also sworn an affidavit which merely says that he never received any notice from the Copying Branch of the completion of the copy, and that he took 8 days to prepare the draft of the petition for special leave.
- The Advocate was undoubtedly aware when he undertook preparation of the special leave petition that it was already 70 days out of time. No extensive research was required. Evidently there was absence of the necessary degree of diligence even at this stage.
- But the earlier and longer delay is not covered by any acceptable excuse. When the application for the copy was moved in the Advocate's name, it is not to be believed that the follow-up was left entirely to the litigant himself. The Advocate himself, or his munshi would have experienced no difficulty in obtaining correct information concerning the copy and taking delivery on the earliest possible date. The version put forward in the petitioner's affidavit is clearly designed to make his presumed unfamiliarity with the procedures in the High Court's various offices available as an excuse. It is not to be believed that after he had made his futile visits to the Copying Branch three or four times, he would not have had recourse to his Advocate for this relatively small service.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 30th October 1963, in Civil Revision No. 210 of 1953). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(.4-Petition time barred-Leave, nevertheless, granted but point of limitation reserved-Subsequently at hearing of appeal leave rescinded and petition dismissed on failure of petitioner to justify condonation of delay .-Assertion that Copying Branch of High Court misinformed about date when copy of judgment was ready for delivery and further that thereafter lawyer had taken 8 days in drafting and filing petition-Held, not sufficient. Respondents Nos. 1-8: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
A. R. CORNELIUS, C J.-The petition for special leave to appeal in this case was barred by time by 79 days. When leave was granted, the point of limitation was reserved. At the hearing of the appeal today, the learned Attorney-General of Pakistan raised the question. On examining the particulars, we find that the petitioner has failed to establish that the delay was due to circumstances beyond his control. The judgment of the High Court having been delivered on the 30th October 1963, application for a copy was made on the 9th November 1963. In the application for condona tion of the delay, it is said, in careful language that "it was made in the name of my Counsel, namely, Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate." The further averments in the application are:- (1) that thereafter only the petitioner Mr. Mubarak Mend exerted himself to procure the copy; (2) he visited the Copying Branch twice a week regularly, but was always told the copy was not ready; (3) he examined the list of "ready copies" exhibited at the Copying Branch, but the number of his copy never appeared therein; (4) the copy was finally delivered to him on the 25th March 1964, and was endorsed to show that it was ready for delivery on the 26th November 1963 ; and (5) thereafter, it took his lawyer 8 days to draft and file the petition. Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Bhatti the Advocate has also sworn an affidavit which merely says that he never received any notice from the Copying Branch of the completion of the copy, and that he took 8 days to prepare the draft of the petition for special leave. The Advocate was undoubtedly aware when he undertook preparation of the special leave petition that it was already 70 days out of time. No extensive research was required. Evidently there was absence of the necessary degree of diligence even at this stage. But the earlier and longer delay is not covered by any acceptable excuse. When the application for the copy was moved in the Advocate's name, it is not to be believed that the follow-up was left entirely to the litigant himself. The Advocate himself, or his munshi would have experienced no difficulty in obtaining correct information concerning the copy and taking delivery on the earliest possible date. The version put forward in the petitioner's affidavit is clearly designed to make his presumed unfamiliarity with the procedures in the High Court's various offices available as an excuse. It is not to be believed that after he had made his futile visits to the Copying Branch three or four times, he would not have had recourse to his Advocate for this relatively small service. We therefore refuse to condone the delay. The case involves property rights, and it is not shown that the d#1ny was due to causes beyond the petitioner's control. The leave granted is hereby rescinded and the petition is dismissed with costs. Leave rescinded. Petition dismissed