Petition for leave to appeal

In exceptional circumstances involving flagrant violation of law, wrongful exercise of jurisdiction or manifest grave injustice, an aggrieved party can approach Supreme Court in terms of Article 185(3) of the Constitution with the request to set aside even an interim order falling within the category of such exceptions.

Held: Complainant had died and his brother was also injured eye-witness of the occurrence, therefore, Supreme Court allowed the brother of deceased to appear in petition for leave to appeal filed by accused persons against their conviction and sentence.

One petition filed by Federation of Pakistan was beyond the scope of objection, therefore, presence of one or more petitions with objections on maintainability did not preclude Supreme Court from adjudicating upon common issue arising from judgments of same High Court

Objection was overruled.

Supreme Court does not disturb concurrent findings of the Courts below, save on grounds of legal error apparent on the face of the record.

One petition filed by Federation of Pakistan was beyond the scope of objection, therefore, presence of one or more petitions with objections on maintainability did not preclude Supreme Court from adjudicating upon common issue arising from judgments of same High Court

Objection was overruled.

Respondent filed Constitutional petition before the High Court against the petitioner-company, seeking multiple declarations and prayers; the High Court, however, transmitted the Constitutional petition to the District and Sessions Judge/Tribunal Protection Consumer Interest to redress respondent's grievance; it also restrained the department from disconnecting the gas connection

Sessions Judge transferred the complaint to the Consumer Court, which dismissed the complaint

However, the High Court, once again remanded it for decision afresh to the Consumer Court, which dismissed the complaint for the second time

Appeal was filed by respondent before the High Court against dismissal of his complaint, which appeal was allowed, judgment of the Consumer Court was set-aside and the complaint was allowed

Counsel for the petitioner-company contended that there was no occasion for the High Court, in the first place, to transmit the Constitution petition involving factual controversies requiring technical verification for determination to the Consumer Court and, thus, on each occasion the Consumer Court rightly dismissed the complaint; that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997 ('the Act') was a statute devised to protect legitimate rights of a consumer to have best value for his money and for that it placed specified obligations upon the manufacturer; that the respondent was not a consumer nor the petitioner a manufacturer within the contemplation of Ss. 2(c) & 2(j) of the Act and, thus, the High Court had misdirected itself to refer the issue to the Court, an error rectified through successive dismissals leaving no space for the High Court to allow the complaint by putting at peril a colossal amount due to the public exchequer

Supreme Court observed that contentions raised by the counsel for petitioner-company needed consideration, therefore leave was granted.

Petition for leave to appeal could be filed within 60 days.

Present petition had arisen out of impugned order passed by Chief Court in civil revision, whereby the concurrent findings of the courts below were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court

Order of the Chief Court, was well reasoned and well founded; no interference was warranted as the same had been passed in accordance with law and the facts of the case

Said order of the Chief Court was affirmed by the Supreme Appellate Court.

Employee had claimed pro forma promotion against the post of Director Animal Husbandry (Live Stocks) BPS-19 and appealed to the Service Tribunal which was accepted

Validity

Employee was assigned the duty of Director Animal Husbandry on current charge basis and he retired after about 1 year from said assignment on attaining the age of superannuation in the post of Deputy Director

Service Tribunal while accepting appeal of the employee directed the department to prepare working paper for promotion of the employee from date of assigning the duty of Director Animal Husbandry to the date of his retirement along with all back benefits including pensionary benefits

Judgment by the Service Tribunal was well reasoned and well founded

No interference was warranted in the said judgment

Advocate-General could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and was dismissed, in circumstances.

Where the plaint would not disclose cause of action, same had to be rejected and for that purpose only the plaint was to be looked and nothing else

Written statement also could not be looked

In the present case, plaint showed that plaintiff had disclosed cause of action in the plaint and defendant had filed application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., for rejection of plaint urging that plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit

Validity

Plaintiff in fact having disclosed cause of action in the suit, petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was allowed

Impugned orders/judgments of the courts below were set aside and case was remitted to the Trial Court to decide the matter on merits.

For purpose of an inquiry or investigation, the officer so inquiring/investigating would have all the powers as were available with Officer-in-charge of a Police Station under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 provided under Chapter XIV of the said Code

Inquiry/investigation could be initiated only by the Chairman of the Bureau or an Officer of the NAB duly authorized by him

If an inquiry or investigation was ordered in respect of offence punishable under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 by Chairman NAB, then during the course of said inquiry or investigation of such offence, any officer duly authorized by Chairman, was competent to call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself; whether there had been any contravention of the provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, or any rule or order made thereunder

Mere irregularity or illegality on the part of the Investigating Officer in following procedure within meaning of Chapter XIV of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 would not cost an offence to go unattended; because an irregularity or illegality in procedure could be cured, but not the impacts and effects of an offence, if same was let un-touched, despite its being coming to light

National Accountability Bureau authorities, could not be precluded to issue call-up notices or restrain to conduct an inquiry/investigation

Said authorities were lawfully authorized to conduct inquiry/investigation, and interference into such inquiries/investigations by the NAB authorities would seriously prejudice the prosecution towards its right in probing into an investigation/inquiry of an offence

No illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments/order

Impugned judgment being well reasoned and well founded, no interference was warranted

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was dismissed.

Petitioner, during his service had availed professional training from recognized educational institutions in order to improve his teaching skills

Authorities terminated the services of the petitioner in line with the Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual, meanwhile 'Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme (VERS) was introduced for the employees/ teachers

Said package extended financial benefits to all the employees/teachers, except to the petitioner

Writ petition by the petitioner was dismissed by the Chief Court

Validity

Petitioner was nearing retirement at the time of his termination

Authorities were supposed to include the petitioner in the said retirement package at par with other employees/teachers instead of termination of his 31 years service

Petitioner should have been treated equally amongst equals

Petitioner was condemned unheard, which was against the principles of natural justice

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed

Judgment passed by the Chief Court in writ petition, as well as termination letter of petitioner were set aside

Authorities were directed to extend the benefits of "Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme" in favour of the petitioner as given to other teachers.

Writ petition filed by the petitioners, having been dismissed by the Chief Court, petitioners had filed petition for leave to appeal

Petitioners who were appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer BPS-17 on contract basis; joined their duties and continued their job for about one and half years

Summary for regularization of the services of the petitioners had been withdrawn vide an office order

Chief Court dismissed the writ petition against withdrawal of summary for regularization

Validity

Petitioners were appointed purely on the contract basis and on completion of the period of the project, their services could not be regularized without the recommendation of the Authority which had appointed the petitioners

Petitioners could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the said order

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed

Judgment passed by Chief Court in writ petition, was maintained.

Services of the employee were regularized/adjusted against the vacant post of teacher BPS-09, but authorities had not paid salary of the employee on the ground that employee was not a regular appointee and her contingent order was also illegal and incorrect

Appeal filed by the employee was accepted by the Service Tribunal, directing the authorities to release the pay of the employee from the date of her appointment order

Authorities challenged said order alleging the same as result of misconception of law and facts and not tenable

Advocate-General could not point out any infirmity and illegality in the judgment of the Service Tribunal

Leave to appeal was refused.

Present petition had been directed against the impugned judgment passed by Chief Court in writ petition, whereby, respondent/employee had been declared entitled to continue his service in accordance with law with all back benefits and authorities were directed to reinstate the services of the employee and the termination order issued by the authorities, was set aside

Employee was terminated from his service without assigning any reason or issuing any show-cause notice; which was violation of the terms and conditions provided in the appointment order

Deputy Attorney-General, could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the judgment of Chief Court

Interference in the impugned judgment was not warranted

Petition was converted into appeal and same was dismissed and judgment of Chief Court was maintained, in circumstances.

Suit having been decreed by the Trial Court, defendants filed first appeal before the appellate court below for setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court, which was partially accepted

Plaintiff feeling aggrieved, filed revision in the Chief Court against the judgment of appellate court below; which was accepted and Chief Court set aside impugned judgment of the appellate court below, declaring the same being based on mere conjectures and suffering from misreading of evidence

Judgment of the Trial Court was maintained by the Chief Court

Defendants had filed petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Chief Court

No infirmity and illegality had been pointed out in the well-reasoned judgment passed by the Chief Court

No interference being warranted in the judgment of the Chief Court, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Trial Court, declaring the same as vague and without proof

Plaintiffs feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of the Trial Court filed first appeal before the Chief Court for setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court

Said appeal was accepted and judgment passed by the Trial Court was set aside being without force

Defendant being aggrieved, filed petition for leave to appeal for setting aside the judgment of Chief Court

Validity

Chief Court had rightly set aside the judgment/decree of the Trial Court as the same was the result of misconception of law and misreading of the facts of the case

No infirmity and illegality having been found in the judgment passed by the Chief Court, no interference was warranted

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed

Judgment of the Chief Court was maintained, in circumstances.

Chief Court in writ petition had passed order whereby cancellation of appointment was set aside declaring the same as illegal and without lawful authority

Advocate-General, could not show any illegality and infirmity in the judgment/order by the Chief Court

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by Supreme Appellate Bench and was dismissed

Judgment/order passed by the Chief Court was maintained.

On the date when case was fixed for recording statements of the witnesses of the plaintiff, defendant and his counsel remained absent and case was proceeded ex parte

Trial Court after recording the statements of the witnesses of the plaintiff, announced its judgment/decree ex parte with detailed discussion on each and every issue

Revision filed by defendant against the judgment of the Trial Court was dismissed by the appellate court and writ petition filed by the defendant therefore having also been dismissed by Chief Court

Defendant had filed petition for leave to appeal before Supreme Appellate Court

Contention of the defendant was that ex parte judgment and decree had been passed against him due to intentional and mala fide advice of his counsel

Validity

Ill-advice of the counsel was no ground for setting aside ex parte decree

Procedure adopted by the counsel of defendant, was not in consonance with law and prescribed procedure

Law would come to rescue those persons who approached the court as per procedure and law

Defendant could not even append the detail of documents about his alleged ailment with the petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Appellate Court

Division Bench of Chief Court and courts below had exhaustively dealt with each and every point argued before it

No ground was available to interfere with the well founded judgment

Leave to appeal was refused, in circumstances.

Petitions for leave to appeal, in the present case, were barred by 2 and 4 days respectively, however, keeping in view the important law points of public importance involved therein including right to dower, dowry articles and maintenance, which could not be lightly ignored, the delay of 2 and 4 days respectively, in filing petitions was condoned.

Points raised by counsel for the petitioners, could hardly be considered as grounds for condonation of delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908

Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 mandated accounting for each and every day of the delay caused

Internal and self-creative difficulties of the Government or the Government Departments did not fall within the ambit to condone the delay

Formalities of government department were not recognized by law of limitation

Government, would not enjoy any preferential treatment qua an ordinary litigant in the application of law of limitation

Opposite party could be not be penalized

Government department, if wished to get any legal remedy for which they were entitled under the law of land, they must follow the law of limitation and show their vigilance by avoiding the formalities to save the expiry of limitation

Petition for leave to appeal was refused being time barred.

Copy of said judgment was prepared after four days and same was received by the petitioner on next day of its preparation, but petition for leave to appeal was filed four months after the receipt of said copy

Explanation offered by Advocate-General, being not acceptable, leave to appeal was refused by Supreme Appellate Court being time barred.

Supreme Appellate Court had power to hear the petition for leave to appeal against the final judgment, decree and order passed by the Chief Court

Petition for leave to appeal was not maintainable in case of an interim order.

Under the provisions of Art. 185(3) of the Constitution unless and until a particular matter involving an important point of law, relating to the public at large, was made out, the extraordinary remedy under the said provision could not be extended in a routine manner in each and every case.

Stay of execution of order of Trial Court for imprisonment pending disposal of a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court

Bar under proviso to O.XXIII, R.8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, that "unless surrender was first made to an order of imprisonment, petition for leave to appeal shall not be entertained"

Scope

Petitioner, in the present case, was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court, and at time of announcement of judgment by Trial Court, petitioner slipped away and non-bailable warrants of arrest had been issued against him

Petitioner thereafter filed appeal against conviction and sentence before the High Court and vide miscellaneous application sought suspension of sentence; which application was dismissed by High Court

Question before the Supreme Court was "whether the petition for leave to appeal against impugned order of High Court could be entertained in view of the bar contained in proviso to O.XXIII, R.8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980"

Contention of petitioner was that after recording of his conviction and sentence by the Trial Court, he had surrendered before the High Court at the time of hearing of his application seeking suspension of sentence; hence his petition for leave to appeal should be entertained

Held, that per O.XXIII, R.8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980; surrender to an order of imprisonment was a condition precedent for entertainment of petition for leave to appeal and it was only after a valid and proper entertainment of such petition that the relief regarding stay of execution of the order for imprisonment or fine could be granted

Requirement of surrender to an order of imprisonment pertained only to criminal petitions involving an order of imprisonment; for example, cases where a conviction had been recorded or upheld and an express order has been passed that the petitioner may be taken into custody or cases where bail of the petitioner has been disallowed or cancelled and an order had been passed that he may be taken into custody and the same did not apply to criminal petitions seeking bail before arrest in a criminal case where no order of imprisonment had so far been passed

Trial Court, in the present case, had convicted and sentenced the petitioner and had simultaneously passed an order that the petitioner, who was on bail till then, was to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve his sentence of imprisonment

When the petitioner slipped away from the Trial Court, the Court had also issued perpetual non-bailable warrants for his arrest

Two orders of imprisonment already stood outstanding against the petitioner and admittedly he had not surrendered to the said orders of imprisonment so far

Surrender to an order of imprisonment was not the same thing as surrendering before a higher court without actually being imprisoned in compliance of a judicial order passed in such regard

Present petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner could not be entertained till he surrendered to his orders of imprisonment, as made explicit by the first proviso to R.8 of O.XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980

Petition for leave to appeal, being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petition had been preferred for correction of the word "petitioners" instead of affectees in the judgment/order passed by the Supreme Appellate Court

Petitioners, could not succeed to convince the Court with regard to the amendment/correction in the judgment in question

Petition was refused.

Said delay was sought to be condoned on the ground that delay had been caused because of adaptation of the self-created procedure to seek permission from higher authorities

Validity

Limitation Act, 1908 did not recognize said method which was used by the Government Department

No concession in that regard had been given by the law to any Government or its department

Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, demanded from the parties seeking condonation, to account for each and every day of the delay, and to prove circumstances inevitable and beyond human control

Advocate-General having failed to submit any cogent ground for condonation of delay in filing petition for leave to appeal, petition was dismissed as time-barred.

Supreme Court would not deal with academic issues in a petition for leave to appeal when no live issue remained to be decided

Subject matter of present petition was dispute over election to the office of President, Lahore High Court Bar Association held in the year 2009

Term of office of the President, Lahore High Court Bar Association elected in terms of election held on 11-7-2009 expired in February 2010, and thereafter periodical election of the said office had been held

Substantive issue, therefore, was no more alive

Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court accordingly with the observation that it would be open to the parties to re-agitate the substantive issue of the present petition in any future eventuality with reference to a live matter.

Period of limitation for filing petition for leave to appeal under O.XIII of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978 was 60 days from the date of impugned judgment of High Court

Judgment and decree, in the present case, was passed by the High Court on 7-4-2010

Plea of petitioners/appellants was that they came to know about the decision of the High Court on 30-6-2010

Petition for leave to appeal was ready on 3-7-2010 and it was signed on 4-7-2010, but was filed after a delay of one day for which no sufficient cause had been brought on the record

Delay of each and every day had to be explained

If the plea of counsel for the appellants is taken into consideration that they came to know about the decision of High Court dated 7-4-2010 on 30-6-2010, even then petition for leave to appeal was filed after a delay of one day for which no sufficient cause had been brought on record

Argument of the counsel that appellants were illiterate persons, therefore, they did not know the question of limitation, had no force as the ignorance of law was no excuse

Appeal was dismissed being barred by time, in circumstances.

Petitions for leave to appeal were filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court by which writ petitions of the petitioners were dismissed

Respondent contended that where an Intra Court Appeal was provided by law against the impugned judgment, a petition for leave to appeal would not be maintainable and same had to be dismissed as such the petitioners might file separate Intra Court Appeals before the High Court

Validity

First petition for leave to appeal (first petition) was filed on the 20th day of the announcement of the impugned judgment and an Intra Court Appeal as such would not be out of time, while the second petition for leave to appeal (second petition) was filed on the 58th day of the announcement of the impugned judgment and as such an Intra Court Appeal would be out of time

Filing of petitions for leave to appeal by the petitioners was apparently an innocent mistake based upon the wrong advice of the counsel and of misunderstanding of the petitioner of the second petition, who perhaps might have followed the petitioner of the first petition in availing the remedy against the impugned judgment, which remedy although might not be maintainable but by dismissing the same and allowing the petitioners to file an Intra Court Appeal would only be ministerial work which could appropriately be cut short by allowing the present petitions to be treated as Intra Court Appeals to be decided by the High Court

Question of limitation arising in the Intra Court Appeals would be dealt by the High Court in accordance with the law

Present cases provided enough justification, where technicalities of procedure could be overcome by converting petition for leave to appeal into appeal or remanding the case from one court to another court/Tribunal by making the very same case by changing its character, nature or name and decided accordingly

Petitions for leave to appeal were disposed of by treating the same as Intra Court Appeals, which were to be decided by the High Court in accordance with the law.

Supreme Court dismissed the petition in circumstances.

Civil petition for leave to appeal against judgment dated 12-7-2000, passed by High Court was filed on 24-7-2000 i.e., within 12 days

Supreme Court had granted permission for conversion of petition into civil appeal in an earlier order

Appeal so converted was to be deemed to have been instituted from the date the petition was filed

No prejudice was caused to respondent nor any question of limitation could legitimately be raised as regards filing of the civil appeal.

Copy of order under appeal was dispatched to petitioner vide letter dated 23-11-2010 of Registrar of Service Tribunal which was received by petitioner on 29-11-2010, as recorded in departmental record and petition for leave to appeal was filed on 26-1-2011, i.e. before expiry of statutory period of 60 days

Petition for leave to appeal was filed within time.

Validity-In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Supreme Court entertained appeal as an exception to general rule of first availing remedy of intra-court appeal against judgment of Judge of High Court.

Mere such plea without a positive attempt to substantiate same would be of no consequence.

Such jurisdiction could not be invoked for perpetuation of any illegality or injustice.

Counsel for the petitioners had prayed for permission to withdraw the respective petitions, but added that to save the petitioners from injustice, they could be permitted to approach the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer for satisfaction of their respective claims against some available evacuee property

Both the petitions were dismissed as withdrawn with the direction that if the petitioners would approach the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer for satisfaction of their alleged claims, then competent Authority, notwithstanding the, repeal of the Settlement Laws, would examine the genuineness of the said claims; and then consider satisfaction of the same against some evacuee property; if available, as the matter was pending litigation when the relevant Settlement Laws had been repealed.

Counsel for the petitioners had referred to order whereby constitutional petition was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court, when counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the matter at some length made statement that he would not like to press the petition and on said statement the petition was dismissed

When the said application came up for hearing before another Bench of High Court, counsel for the petitioner had confirmed that he had informed the petitioner that petition was dismissed as not pressed

Counsel for the petitioner had contended that ends of natural justice demanded that mistake could be rectified and parties could not be made to suffer on the consequence of mistake

Counsel was not in a position to produce any law calling for interference where during the course of argument the counsel did not press any point or the case, which was common practice when no case was made out on merits

Counsel had also not been able to point out any mistake in the proceedings which could not be equated with the statement made consciously and deliberately by the counsel before the Bench of the High Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Constitutional petition having been decided by a Single Bench of the High Court, intra court appeal under S.3, Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 was competent before the High Court

Counsel for the petitioner, in circumstances, contended that question of limitation would be a hurdle in his way to approach the High Court

Supreme Court observed that question of limitation shall be considered if the application for condonation of delay was filed, since the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy, as was evident from the facts and circumstances, therefore, "subject to all just exceptions" intra court appeal Bench, seized with the matter, may examine the question of limitation, in filing intra court appeal by the petitioner, favourably

Counsel appearing for the caveat had raised objection upon making of such observation by the Supreme Court

Validity

Held, petitioner had been pursuing his remedy before Supreme Court as well as before the High Court, therefore, by using the words "subject to all just exceptions" Supreme Court allowed the respondent to raise question qua the limitation, but the court would consider it, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, favourably.

Point which was not taken before Lower Court or Tribunal or where plea was not raised before Trial Court or Appellate Authority or in revision before High Court in a petition under Art.199 of the Constitution or which was neither taken before the lower Court or Tribunal, cannot be raised at the hearing

Grounds which should have been taken and urged in previous petition but had not been urged, cannot be permitted to be agitated between sane parties in second round of litigation, notwithstanding the plea that the petitioner was ignorant about them

New point involving investigation into facts cannot be taken up at the stage of leave to appeal.

Impugned judgment being well based wherein all the contentions had been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner did not warrant any interference by the Supreme Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Supreme Court declined to allow respondent's counsel to raise such plea.

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court wits restricted only to substantial questions of law of public importance and not determination of controversial questions of fact

No merit was found in the petition, which otherwise was barred by time and no reasonable explanation existed justifying condonation of the delay

Petition was dismissed.

Such ground would have no force before Supreme Court.

Supreme Court declined to allow respondent's counsel to raise such plea.

Under provisions of Art.185(2)(d) of Constitution, for determining the question as to whether appeal or petition would be competent, amount or value of subject matter of the dispute in the court of first instance should not be less than Rs.50,000; and that the judgment, decree and order appealed from was varied or set aside by the court immediately below

In the present case, the judgment rendered by the original court was varied and set aside by the High Court; and the petitioner claimed pensionary benefits amounting to Rs.8,38,000, which was the subject matter in dispute in the court of first instance

Petition, in view of Art.185(2)(d) of Constitution, was barred and only the appeal was competent.

Plea raised by petitioner might be attractive on moral plain but there was no justification for depriving opposite party of legal rights acquired owing to negligence of petitioner or counsel retained by him

Right to recover amount of wrongful loss caused on account of negligence was available to petitioner, who himself made application to statutory body regulating conduct of advocates

Undue indulgence granted by courts would only multiply such problems

Supreme Court noted with concern that collective bodies of Bar need to seriously attend such matters to restore public confidence in the noble profession

No serious question of law was involved nor findings of High Court had been shown to be perverse so as to call for interference of Supreme Court under Art. 185(3) of the Constitution

Leave to appeal was refused.

Filing of Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal' does not prevent, under O.XX of Supreme Court Rules, 1980, execution of a decree or order appealed against unless stay of execution of decree or order is passed by Supreme Court.

Supreme Court generally does not interfere in concurrent conclusions of courts below while exercising jurisdiction under Art.185 (3) of the Constitution.

Sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay being question of fact was within exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunal

Discretion exercised by Tribunal to condone delay could not be reversed or disturbed by Supreme Court without sufficient lawful justification

Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal.