1979 PLP 376 (SCMR)
MEHRAJ DIN AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L) AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1979 PLP 376 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MEHRAJ DIN AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L) AND OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 376 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 376 (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: 1979 PLP 376 (SCMR) (MEHRAJ DIN AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L) AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.‑ R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ismat Ali Naseem, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 13th February 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5‑Condonation of delay‑Litigation between predecessor‑ interest of petitioners and respondents being conducted for past several years‑Difficult to accept petitioners being unaware of such litigation Petitioners .in any case could have with due diligence, discovered factum of litigation‑Explanation of being unaware of litigation also offered before High Court but not accepted‑Excuse for condonation of delay, held, not satisfactory.
Judgment & Decree
NASM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This petition is in time so far as the order dated 23‑9‑1979 passed in review is concerned, but is barred by 206 days insofar as the main order dated 18‑3‑1976 passed by the High Court is concerned. Mr. A. R. Shaukat concedes that he is unable to challenge the correctness of the order dated 23‑9‑1976 passed on merits, and that ;t is the main order passed by the High Court or merits dated 18‑3‑1976 with which he is really aggrieved. However, it is obvious that before he can challenge the said order, he has to cross the bar of limitation. In connection with the question of delay the explanation given is that the writ petition was originally filed by the predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners (Islamuddin), which was heard and rejected on 18‑3‑1976. The said Islamuddin was confined to bed prior to the announcement of the judgment and remained admitted in hospital and ultimately died on 7‑9‑1976. The present petitioners were not aware of the litigation which was being prosecuted by the deceased which came to their knowledge later on. They then filed a review petition in the High Court, which was dismissed inter alia on the ground of limitation. They thereafter moved this petition for leave to appeal, after obtaining copies of the relevant orders. We are not satisfied with this explanation. It is difficult to accept that the petitioners were not aware of the litigation which their predecessor- in‑interest was conducting for the past several years with the respondents and that in any case they could have, with due diligence, discovered the factum of this litigation. We also observe that the review petition was dismissed by the High Court, inter alia, on the ground of being barred by time where the same explanation as offered to us was given. We agree with the High Court that the excuse for condonation of delay was not satisfactory and could not, therefore, be accepted. No ground for condonation of delay is made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed as barred by time. Petition dismissed.