1968 SCMR 415 (PLP)
AHMAD BUX AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus ALI MURAD-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 415 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AHMAD BUX AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus ALI MURAD-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 415 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 415 (PLP)?
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: 1968 SCMR 415 (PLP) (AHMAD BUX AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus ALI MURAD-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- G. M. Paryani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. H. Memon, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments and orders of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 14th December 1966, in Second Appeal No. 44 of 1963, dated the 13th March 1967 in Second Appeal No. 44 of 1963 and dated the 26th April 1967, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 76 of 1967). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 (3)-Petition barred by 102 days-No separate application for condonation of delay filed-Inordinate delay explained as due to bona fide mistake of lawyer in seeking certificate under c1.10 of Letters Patent (Lahore)-Special Leave refused by Supreme Court-Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII, r.
1. Zafarullah Khan and another v. Mst. Hussain Bibi Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 324 of 1967 ref.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-This petition is barred by time by 102 days. The suit of the respondent for recovery of possession of the disputed land, for account and mesne profits, was dismissed by the Sub-Judge, Larkana. On appeal by the plaintiff, the Additional District Judge, Larkana, reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the suit and the said judgment and decree were upheld by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a second appeal. The said second appeal was dismissed on 14-12-66 and the appellant's petition for a certificate under clause 10 of the Letters Patent was rejected on 13-3-67. They then filed a Letters Patent appeal without a certificate and the same was dismissed on 26-4-67. They now seek special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14-12-66 and orders dated 13-3-67 and 26-4-67. They have however, filed no petition for condonation of the delay. This Court in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 324 of 1967 (Zafarullah Khan and anothers v. Mst. Hussain Bibi) while rejecting the contention that rule 1 of Order XIII of this Court's Rules was applicable to such a case, observed:- "It is plain that the alternative of 30 days from the refusal of grant of certificate does not apply where the refusal is of a certificate for appeal under the Letters Patent of the High Court. Article 58(2)(a) of the Constitution provides for an appeal to lie to this Court from a judgment of a High Court, as of right where 'the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. No such question of law arose in this case, and therefore, there was no occasion to obtain a certificate of the kind referred to in Article 58(2)(a) of the Constitution. The case lay, on limitation, under the primary provision allowing 60 days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be appealed from, for the filing of a petition for special leave." It is, therefore, clear that there has been a delay of 102 days in filing this petition. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that this inordinate delay was due to the bona fide mistake of the lawyer of the petitioners. We see no good ground for extending limitation and accordingly dismiss this petition as time-barred. Petition dismissed.