1972 PLP 332 (SCMR)
ABDULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus KHALIL AHMAD AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1972 PLP 332 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus KHALIL AHMAD AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 332 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 332 (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: 1972 PLP 332 (SCMR) (ABDULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus KHALIL AHMAD AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 3rd July 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, dated the 10th February 1971, in F. A. O. No. 177 of 1968). Supreme Court Rules, 1956 O. XIII, r. 1‑Condonation of delay in filing petition for Special Leave to Appeal against judgment passed in second appeal‑Limitation in case of second appeal runs from date judgment in second appeal passed‑Time spent in obtaining certificate for appeal under Cl. 10, Letters Patent (Lahore) may, however, be condoned if petitioner found diligent throughout and in position to explain delay‑Delay not to be lightly excused in civil matters. Paresh Chandra Biswas v. Tapen Kanti Choudhury P L D 1963 S C 598 and Kalachand Sikdar v: Fazlur Karim Mian 16 D L R 417 (S C) ref.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This petition is barred by 248 days. In the application for condonation of delay, there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in the filing of the petition between the 31st of January 1972, when the copy of the order refusing the certificate under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent was received and the 24th of February 1972, when the petition was filed. It is now well‑settled that the limitation begins to run from the date of tile judgment in second appeal, but the period spent in obtaining a certificate for appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent may be condoned if it is found that the petitioner has been diligent throughout and is in a position to explain the delay. The delay is not to be lightly excused in civil matters, because by the lapse of time, valuable rights accrue to the other side and they cannot be taken away lightly. This has been repeatedly laid down by this Court in the cases of Paresh Chandra Biswas v. Tapen Kand Choudhury (PLD1963SC598) and Kalachand Sikdar v. Fazlur Karim Mian (16DLR417(SC)). In the circumstances, we are unable to overlook the fact that the petitioner has made no attempt to explain why the delay of 24 days took place for filing the petition after receiving the certified copy of the order refusing the certificate. The explana tion of the learned counsel that most of the time was spent in preparing the case, is wholly unconvincing. This petition is accordingly dismissed as being barred by time. Leave refused.