SCMR 1970

1970 PLP 131 (SCMR)

LABHU-Petitioner Versus Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 297 of 1967, decided on 13th October 1967.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1970 PLP 131 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties LABHU-Petitioner Versus Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM — Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 131 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 131 (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: 1970 PLP 131 (SCMR) (LABHU-Petitioner Versus Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Wali Muhammad, Senior Attorney for Petitioner
  • Nemo for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing : 13th October 1967.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 5th December 1966, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 870 of 1966). Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII, r. 1-Delay-Circum stances, not beyond control of petitioner-Delay riot condoned.

Judgment & Decree

CORNELIUS, C. J.‑This petition seeking leave to appeal against refusal by the High Court to quash an order of a Settle ment Authority transferring an evacuee house to one Mst. Mumtazi Begum which the petitioner had claimed for himself, is barred by time by 178 days. Property rights are involved, which have become vested in Mst. Mumtazi Begum through the petitioner's failure to move this petition in time. The causes of his failure set out in his application for condonation of the delay are (a) that his counsel in the High Court informed him of the decision "very very late," and (b) that time was taken in obtaining legal advice and collecting money. No dates are mentioned. Evidently, the delays were due to circumstances not beyond the petitioner's control. The petition is accordingly dismissed as barred by time. Leave refused.