PLD 1900 Lahore 174 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHABBIR ‑‑‑ Respondent Review Application No.41‑C of 1989 in Civil Revision No.1768 of 1986, decided on 21st January, 1990.
| Citation | PLD 1900 Lahore 174 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and Khalid Paul Khawaja , JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQ ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHABBIR ‑‑‑ Respondent Review Application No.41‑C of 1989 in Civil Revision No.1768 of 1986, decided on 21st January, 1990. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in PLD 1900 Lahore 174 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case PLD 1900 Lahore 174 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and Khalid Paul Khawaja , JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: PLD 1900 Lahore 174 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQ ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHABBIR ‑‑‑ Respondent Review Application No.41‑C of 1989 in Civil Revision No.1768 of 1986, decided on 21st January, 1990.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Sikandar Iqbal for petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.5‑‑Application for condonation of delay‑‑Old age and poverty is not a good ground for condonation of delay. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑ S.5‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑‑Applicant has to fully account for the delay of each and every day ‑‑‑ Application for condonation of delay on ground of illness‑‑ Where applicant failed to produce on record any medical certificate or any other proof to show that he was actually ill during the period, delay was not condoned.
Judgment & Decree
KHALID PAUL KHWAJA, J.‑‑By this petition under Order 47 rule 1, C.P.C. Muhammad Shabbir petitioner seeks the review of the order dated 21st January, 1989 passed by our learned brother Lehrasap Khan, J. (as he then was), in Civil Revision No.1768 of 1986 titled Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad Shabbir.
2. The instant review petition was instituted on the 5th of November, 1989 almost nine and a half months after the passing of the impugned Order. As the petition was prima facie barred by time, which in the present case was 90 ‑days, the petitioner has moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay.
3. We have heard the learned counsel and have also perused the material available on record.
4. Para No.2 of the petition contains the grounds on which condonation is sought. The para. is reproduced as under: "That the petitioner is an old and poor man, fell suddenly ill on 29th June, 1989 suffering from high fever and other complications and was confined to bed, therefore, no other male members to look after his case, now the petitioner has recovered from his illness from 5th November, 1989.
5. Old age and poverty per se have never been recognised as good grounds for condonation of delay. As regards illness of the petitioner, admittedly, had fallen ill on 29th June, 1989 and remained so till 5th November, 1989 when he instituted the present review petition. The petitioner has not placed on record any medical certificate or any other proof to show that he was actually the aforementioned period. If for the sake of arguments, it is considered that he I was ill from 29th June, 1989 to 5th November, 1989 even then it does not help him. He has given no explanation as to why did he not institute the present petition from 22nd January, 1989 to 28th June 1989. He has not placed on record the certified copy of the order sought to be reviewed and therefore it cannot be said that time between the said dates was consumed in an effort to obtain the necessary copy. In application for condonation of delay the petitioner has to fully account for the delay of each and every day. As there is no explanation as to why the review petition was not presented within the period of limitation prior to 29th June, 1989, we are of the opinion that there is no valid ground for condoning the delay. The review petition is hopelessly barred by time. The C.M. alongwith the main petition is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed. M.B.A./M‑1944/L