1982 PLP 386 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AQEEL AHMAD SIDDIQI-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 386 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AQEEL AHMAD SIDDIQI-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 386 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 386 (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: 1982 PLP 386 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AQEEL AHMAD SIDDIQI-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 1st September, 1981.
- Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-6-1977, in I.-C. A. 155/76 in W. P. 673/66). -- S. 5-Condonation of delay-Evidence on record showing petitioner having been attending to case and to have obtained certified copies of various documents-Condo nation of delay sought on ground of petitioner having remained confined to bed for some time due to an accident and a medical certificate, attached in support of averment-Medical certificate, held, cannot in such circumstances come to rescue of petitioner, there being no explanation as to why institution of application for condonation of delay alone delayed and particularly when delay after obtaining relevant certified copies still remained unexplained.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 1st September, 1981. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order dated 23‑6‑1977, whereby an Intra Court Appeal/LPA was dismissed by the Nigh Court, maintaining the order of the learned Single Judge of that Court dated 12‑11‑1976, whereby a constitutional petition being W. P. No. 673/66 was dismissed.
2. The appeal is barred by 38 days against the order of the learned Division Bench and 261 days against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. There is an application for condonation of delay. We have heard the learned counsel and also gone through the aforesaid application which in our opinion makes out no case for condonation of delay. A plea has been taken that the petitioner remained confined to bed for some time due to an accident and a medical certificate has been attached in support of this averment. The said certificate, in our opinion, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner, because, evidence is available on the record in the form of obtaining certified copies of various documents etc, that despite the aforesaid illness the petitioner was attending to the case, and there is no explanation as to why only institution of this petition was delayed for all the period involved in this case, and particularly the delay‑ even after obtaining the relevant certified copies, still remained unexplained. In short the application filed does not, as the law requires, cover or explain each day of limitation.
3. The result is that the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the petition is dismissed as time‑barred. Petition dismissed.