1987 PLP 1819 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAZA and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AALIA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1819 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation‑‑Time‑barred petition‑‑Two days delay‑ Condonation of‑‑Petition for leave to appeal prepared on last day of limitation but filed two days later‑‑No explanation for the delay furnished when there was no hurdle in presenting petition on last day of limitation‑‑Petitioner, held, was not entitled to condonation of delay‑‑Petition dismissed as time‑barred.‑‑Limitation. |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAZA and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AALIA and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1819 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1819 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation‑‑Time‑barred petition‑‑Two days delay‑ Condonation of‑‑Petition for leave to appeal prepared on last day of limitation but filed two days later‑‑No explanation for the delay furnished when there was no hurdle in presenting petition on last day of limitation‑‑Petitioner, held, was not entitled to condonation of delay‑‑Petition dismissed as time‑barred.‑‑Limitation. bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1819 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAZA and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AALIA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.A.M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- "The petitioners are residents of Yousaf Kach in District Pishin which is far away from Quetta. The petitioners could not contact their Advocate‑on‑Record earlier due to their impression that 60 days' period would expire after two days."
- 3. We have perused the record and we find that the petition was drawn up and prepared on 27th September, 1986 and the power of attorney authorizing the learned Advocate to act on behalf of the petitioners was also signed on the same day. Yet for no apparent reason the petition was submitted to this Court on 29th September, 1986. As no explanation for this delay has been furnished, when there was no hurdle in presenting the petition on 27th September, 1986, we are not satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to condonation of delay. The application is accordingly dismissed. In consequence the petition being barred by time is also dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Baluchistan High Court dated 22nd July, 1986. The petition was presented with a delay of two days according to the office of this Court.
2. Before considering the petition on merits we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners to the request for the condonation of delay. The explanation for delay furnished in the application for condonation is as under:‑ "The petitioners are residents of Yousaf Kach in District Pishin which is far away from Quetta. The petitioners could not contact their Advocate‑on‑Record earlier due to their impression that 60 days' period would expire after two days." Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the delay was not intentional or deliberate but due to bona fide mistake in computing the period of 60 days from the date of the delivery of the certified copy of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the caveator strongly opposed the application and submitted that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been made out.
3. We have perused the record and we find that the petition was drawn up and prepared on 27th September, 1986 and the power of attorney authorizing the learned Advocate to act on behalf of the petitioners was also signed on the same day. Yet for no apparent reason the petition was submitted to this Court on 29th September, 1986. As no explanation for this delay has been furnished, when there was no hurdle in presenting the petition on 27th September, 1986, we are not satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to condonation of delay. The application is accordingly dismissed. In consequence the petition being barred by time is also dismissed. M. I. /M‑150/S Petition dismissed.