2001 PLP 894 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD WARIS — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 894 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri , and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD WARIS — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 894 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 894 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri , and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 894 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD WARIS — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th October, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 22-2-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on C.M.No.1/C of 1999 in Civil Revisions Nos.411-D and 412-D of 1999). -- S. 5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Condonation of delay--Illness stated to be the cause of delay
Failure to file medical certificate
Effect
Revision was barred by time
Cause for the delay was stated to be illness
Application for condonation of delay was filed and the same was supported by affidavit
Neither any counter-affidavit was filed, nor any material was placed on the record to counter the plea of illness-- High Court condoned the delay by accepting the plea of illness
Validity-- Where other reliable material was available to support the ground of ailment -and no rebutting material had been brought on record by the contesting party, it was not for, all the time necessary to file medical certificate when illness was taken as a ground for condonation of delay
High Court, in view of the material on record, found that sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay
Such finding of fact could not be interfered by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.
These civil petitions for leave to appeal :e directed against an order, dated 22-2-2000 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Miscellaneous Application NO.IJC of 1999 in Civil Revision Nos.411-D and 412-D of 1999 moved by the respondents for condonation of delay was allowed subject to payment of Rs.2,000 as costs. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no medical certificate in respect of the ground for condonation of delay was filed by the respondents and further that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable for condonation of delay in filing a civil revision under section 115, C.P.C. The learned Judge in Chambers in the concluding paragraph of the impugned order has observed:-- "I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides. As the application for condonation of delay on the ground of applicant's attorney suffering from high fever beyond his control is supported by an affidavit and there is no counter-affidavit, I consider it a sufficient cause for condonation of delay for not filing the Revision Petition within the prescribed period of limitation. However, the applicant is burdened with costs of Rs.2,000." It is not for all the time necessary to file medical certificate in case illness is taken as a ground for condonation of delay, when other reliable material is available to support the said ground of ailment and no rebutting material has been brought on record by the contesting party. In the instant case, no counter-affidavit was filed by the petitioner to deny as to what was stated by the respondent with regard to his ailment. No plea was even taken before the learned Judge in Chambers of High Court that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable in the civil revision. The learned Judge, in view of the material on record, found that sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay. The said finding of fact, in the circumstances, cannot be interfered with by this Court. So far the contention that section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply for condonation of delay in case of civil revision filed under section 115, C.P.C., we may observe that this point can be decided later on in some other appropriate matter. In view of the aforesaid reasonings, we find that the petitions have no merit, therefore, leave to appeal is refused and the same are dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-238/S Petitions dismissed.