1976 PLP 272 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,
| Citation | 1976 PLP 272 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 272 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 272 (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: 1976 PLP 272 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. S. Mahboob, Advocate and Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 7th January 1976.
- In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that in the first instance there was some confusion as to the date on which the High Court judgment was delivered, namely, whether it was 2‑5‑1975 or 2‑6‑1975. Even when it became clear that the judgment of the High Court was dated the 2nd of June 1975, the petitioner was unable to engage an Advocate‑on- Record for the purpose of filing this petition, as in the meantime he had fallen ill with a heart ailment. He instructed his son to do the needful, but was informed that the matter had already become time‑barred. The petitioner accordingly gave up the matter, but in the third week of September 1975, he found that the matter was not barred by time as the judgment of the High Court was dated 2‑6‑75 and not 2‑5‑75. It is submitted that the delay wars thus caused by the confusion as to the date of the Judgment and the indisposition of the petitioner. In support of this last ground a medical certificate has also been appended with the application showing that the petitioner received medical treatment from 5‑7‑75 to 20‑9‑75. The petition was tiled ors the 29th of September 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court made on 2‑6‑1975 in W. P. No. 376‑8 of 1971). --‑‑Art. 187 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑Delay, condonation of‑Petitioner even o6 his own narration of facts bearing on his illness not unable to give instructions for filing of petition in time‑Each day's delay beyond prescribed period also not explained Petition dismissed as barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, J.--‑This petition is barred by 82 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that in the first instance there was some confusion as to the date on which the High Court judgment was delivered, namely, whether it was 2‑5‑1975 or 2‑6‑1975. Even when it became clear that the judgment of the High Court was dated the 2nd of June 1975, the petitioner was unable to engage an Advocate‑on- Record for the purpose of filing this petition, as in the meantime he had fallen ill with a heart ailment. He instructed his son to do the needful, but was informed that the matter had already become time‑barred. The petitioner accordingly gave up the matter, but in the third week of September 1975, he found that the matter was not barred by time as the judgment of the High Court was dated 2‑6‑75 and not 2‑5‑
75. It is submitted that the delay wars thus caused by the confusion as to the date of the Judgment and the indisposition of the petitioner. In support of this last ground a medical certificate has also been appended with the application showing that the petitioner received medical treatment from 5‑7‑75 to 20‑9‑
75. The petition was tiled ors the 29th of September 1975. We regret we are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner. Each day of the delay beyond the prescribed period bas to be explained, but this has not been done. From the narration of facts bearing on the petitioner's illness, it becomes clear that be was not unable to give instructions for the filing of the present petition in time. We would accordingly dismiss this petition as barred by time. Petition dismissed.