Delay

Previously, the limitation for filing a civil revision was provided in S.115 of C.P.C (90 days from the date of order, judgment and decree), however, since S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was not applicable, hence, the delay could not have been condoned, however, in view of an amendment made in First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 a new Article (Article 162-A) has been inserted, which spells out the period for filing a civil revision, thus, as a natural corollary to that S.5 of the Act has been made applicable to S.115 C.P.C, however, in order to seek refuge of the said provision sufficient cause has to be given by the applicants for seeking condonation of delay.

No record of ailment of petitioner was appended with the application and mere mentioning of advanced age of the petitioner was not an excuse

Ignorance of office process was not a good ground for condonation of delay, as such the delay was not condoned as after expiry of statutory period of limitation the verdicts in question had attained the status of past and closed transaction

After expiry of the period of limitation a valuable right stood accrued in favour of the opposite party which could not be taken away rather convincing reasons had to be furnished in this regard and the absence thereof disentitled a delinquent litigant from discretionary relief

Civil revision was blatantly time barred

Application for condonation of delay was dismissed along with the civil revision, in circumstances.

Present revision petition was blatantly time barred, as such there was no need to decide the issue raised therein on merits.

Party is bound to remove objection within time prescribed by the office, but no penal action can be taken against it without issuing notice to it or before establishing that the party concerned failed to do the needful despite being put to notice

No notice was issued to the mortgagor asking her to remove the office objection within specified period and when the application of the mortgagor seeking extension of time to remove the office objection was accepted and she removed the office objection, it did not lay in the mouth of the mortgagee to raise objection against the maintainability of civil revision on the point of limitation

Irrespective of the fact as to whether any application for condonation of delay had been filed or not, High Court, while deciding a revision petition, has to see validity of the decisions impugned before it and if the same are found to be untenable the question of limitation assumes secondary status, thus, the objection raised by the mortgagee qua maintainability of civil revision on the point of limitation was spurned.

If at all the appellant was able to secure a decree in its favour, it could surely institute execution proceedings against the defendants in the said suit, but a claim simpliciter against the USF Company could not furnish a valid ground for the appellant to avoid its obligation under clause 4.1.2.2 of the licence to make its USF contribution.

Whenever during the pendency of proceedings, a claim is partially satisfied, the proceedings could continue with respect to the remaining amount

Appellant by its act of making a partial contribution to USF could not expect the clock to be turned back for the initiation of proceedings afresh by the issuance of another show cause notice.

Licencee challenged the said order on the grounds that no LPAF could be imposed due to delay in payment of USF and since show cause notice was issued by the Director (Legal) PTA (delegatee) and not by PTA (Delegator), thus, PTA had no authority to proceed with the matter

Validity

Section 23 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, (Act) provides that where a licensee contravenes any provision of the Act or the Rules made thereunder or any term or condition of the licence, PTA or any of its officers not below the rank of Director may, by written notice, require the licensee to show cause within thirty days as to why an enforcement order may not be issued

Continued failure on part of the licensee to pay the USF caused PTA to issue show cause notice to the licensee, explicitly mentioning that the Director (Law), PTA was issuing the said notice by exercising the delegated powers of PTA

No provision in the Act or the Rules made thereunder prevented PTA from conducting proceedings pursuant to a notice which was issued by an officer exercising delegated powers of PTA

By delegating its power, the parent authority does not denude itself of its authority either to revoke the delegation or to exercise its power as a parent authority

Under S. 7(2) of the Act, an appeal lays to PTA against any decision or order of any officer of PTA acting under the delegated powers of PTA

Order/decision had been passed by PTA and not by any officer of PTA acting under the delegated powers of PTA, thus, an appeal in terms of S.7(1) of the Act against the said order/decision could be preferred before the High Court and as such no substance was found in the appellant's contention that since the show cause notice had been issued by the Director (Law), PTA, it was only he who should have conducted the proceedings pursuant to the said notice or to have taken a decision in the matter

Terms of the licence brought USF contribution within the rubric of annual fees, the non-payment or delay in the payment whereof entailed the imposition of LPAF

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Delay in registration of FIR is not always fatal for prosecution, more particularly in cases involving white collar crimes or where entire evidence is documentary

Court considers impact of delay in every case with reference to its peculiar facts and circumstances

In offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. delay is of little consequence as it is based on dishonor of a cheque.

Accused was convicted and sentenced to death, whereas the co-accused were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life

Investigating Officer produced Forensic Science Laboratory Report regarding blood-stained clothes of the deceased

Parcel of blood-stained clothes of deceased was received in Forensic Science Laboratory with the delay of more than 85 days without any explanation

Report of blood-stained clothes though was positive, however, the prosecution had failed to justify the delay

Positive Report of Laboratory, without plausible explanation for such delay, lost its evidentiary value

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to discharge its responsibility of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Delay of each and every day has to be explained satisfactorily, otherwise the delay cannot and should not be condoned.

Said fact was relevant because in the statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. the said witness had not given specific description of the accused

Evidence of said witness in respect of identification also became doubtful as the Police Officer in his statement admitted that during the remand of the accused, the complainant and eye-witness had visited the police station and the identification parade took place after eye-witness had visited the police station

Eye-witness had not mentioned any features of the assailants either in the FIR or in his statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C., therefore, there was no benchmark to test whether the accused to whom eye-witness had identified after over five years of the crime and to whom he had seen was in fact the actual culprit

Circumstances established that the present case was replete with number of circumstances which had created serious doubt about the prosecution story

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Appellant assailed order of Collector of Customs (Adjudication) whereby he had confiscated the goods imported by appellant

Appeal filed by appellant was barred by time and the reason assigned by the appellant for delay in filing appeal was that he was infected with chikungunya virus and was advised by the doctor to take complete rest for a period of two months

Appellant had produced medical certificates issued by the concerned doctor

Validity

Movement of the infected person while suffering from chikungunya virus came to zero due to pain in joints and high fever and the only cure was complete rest, which the doctor had advised to the appellant

Appellant had done the needful when he was able to move, therefore, delay in filing appeal was condoned by the Appellate Tribunal.

Contention of appellant was that delay in filing appeal after period of limitation was immaterial as time was consumed in obtaining departmental approval

Validity

Impugned judgment was passed on 11-10-2017 and authorities applied for attested copies of the same on 26-01-2018 after 107 days which were delivered on 03-02-2018

Present appeal was filed on 07-02-2018 which was barred by 22 days

Delay of each and every day had to be sufficiently explained while filing application for condonation of delay

Government or its department as a party should be treated alike just an ordinary litigant and no preferential treatment could be extended to government department

Appellant had failed to explain the delay of each day satisfactorily in filing of appeal, same was dismissed being time barred.

Statement of prosecution witnesses to be recorded as promptly as possible, without giving any opportunity to improve upon and subtract from what he had seen

Delayed recording of the statement of the witness would be fatal and sounded death knell for the prosecution case.

Delay in recording the statement of eye-witnesses of even one or two days without any explanation could not be relied upon.

Delay in recording the statement of the witnesses who were either family members or close relatives of the deceased would be inexplicable.

Such unexplained delay in recording the statement of eye-witnesses would create doubt on the accuracy and credibility of these witnesses.

Reliance could not be placed upon the statements of the witnesses.

Evidence of said witnesses could not be relied upon in circumstances.

Failure to maintain register of members and index; default in complying with the directions of the Commission for holding the meeting; failure of company to cause a fair and accurate summary of the minutes of all proceedings of meetings and failure to have Secretaries

Appeal

Delay

Condonation of delay

Company having violated provisions of Ss.147, 171, 173, 186, 193 & 204-A of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, penalties were imposed on Chief Executive and other Directors of the company, who filed appeals against impugned orders before Appellate Bench of the Commission with a delay of more than six years

Section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 had stipulated only 30 days to file appeal

Application filed by the Directors of the company for condonation of delay, which was allowed by the Appellate Bench and delay was condoned

Plea of the company was that notices having not been served, the matter was proceeded ex parte

Corporate Supervision Department of the Commission, stated that notices were served in accordance with law to the company's registered address and its Directors' addresses, but the Directors failed to join the proceedings

Company having denied any such service of notices, opportunity of fair trial must be given to the company

Technicalities could not be allowed to create any hurdle in the way of substantial justice; law favoured adjudication on merits rather than technicalities

Impugned orders were set aside and matter was remanded to the Corporate Supervision Department of the Commission to decide the same afresh for providing an opportunity of hearing to the company

Company was directed to provide valid postal/contact details to the Commission for necessary correspondence.

Even one or two days unexplained delay in recording the statement of eye-witnesses would be fatal and testimony of such witnesses could not be safely relied upon.

Witnesses produced by the vendee categorically stated that the pre-emptor had the knowledge of the sale of the property in dispute on the date of such sale

Such portion of their statement had not been cross-examined

Pre-emptor entered the witness box and during his cross-examination conceded that the sale of the property would ordinarily be known to all and sundry in the locality

Pre-emptor also asserted that he had knowledge of such transaction on the date thereof which he stated to be 3-12-1994 (the sale actually took place on 30-11-1994)

Pre-emptor was unable to prove that the 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' was effected in accordance with law within the requisite time specified therein

Suit for pre-emption was rightly dismissed

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Hurt; wrongful confinement; theft in dwelling house; dishonestly receiving stolen property; cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property; mischief committed after preparation to commit death or hurt; forgery for purpose of cheating; using as genuine a forged document

Bail, recalling of

Delay

Allegations as to hurt caused by the accused person was supported by the medical evidence

Delay in lodging of the FIR, though had not been explained by the complainant, could not be considered damaging at bail stage, nor could the delay be held to be an ultimate circumstance to grant extraordinary relief of bail before-arrest to the accused

Accused had concealed the fact as to dismissal of his pre-arrest bail by the court below from the Investigation Officer at the time of joining of the investigation of the case

Investigation Officer had declared the accused as innocent on the same day of his joining the investigation, without caring for the fact that the report under S.512, Cr.P.C. had already been submitted against him before the court

Accused had also been proceeded against under S.87, Cr.P.C.

No reason existed to believe that due to mala fide or malice on part of the complainant, the accused had been falsely implicated in the case

Ad-interim bail already granted to the accused was recalled

Application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed accordingly.

Delay in post-mortem examination had created suspicion regarding the promptness and genuineness of the crime report, benefit of which resolved in favour of accused

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge by setting aside the conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court.

Allegations as to motive of abduction that were killing, ransom or satisfaction of lust, had not been supported by material/evidence

Accused, being wife of the co-accused, was not expected to facilitate her husband to abduct a child for the purpose of the commission of unnatural lust; therefore, possibility, that complainant had spread wide net to entangle the whole family of the accused

Recovery of the abductee from house of present accused was not appealable to a prudent mind

Accused, being a woman, was entitled to the concessionary relief under S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

Accused had a suckling baby of seven months at the time of her arrest

Accused was not a previous convict or involved in any criminal case

Challan of the case had already been submitted before the Court

Doubts brought the case within the purview of further inquiry

Bail application was allowed accordingly.

Application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay in filing of appeal under S. 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Maintainability

Provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 were not applicable to appeal filed under S. 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, as the said Ordinance was a special law, which itself provided period of limitation for filing of appeal against the judgment, decree, sentence, or final order passed by Banking Court.

Weapon of offence having been recovered later in time sending of crime empties to Forensic Science Laboratory before the recovery of weapon of offence was useless

Delay had destroyed the evidentiary value of such piece of evidence but if such piece of evidence was excluded in the presence of strong ocular evidence coupled with medical evidence against the accused persons, recording of conviction would not be affected

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Government Departments could not claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant and in fact government enjoyed unusual facilities for preparation and conduct of cases and its resources were much larger than those possessed by ordinary litigants, and delay of each day had to be explained.

Incident, alleged by complainant in application before Ex-officio Justice of Peace had taken place on 2-2-2014 and application for registration of FIR was filed on 11-4-2014

Contention of applicant was that all this time he was trying his best to get FIR registered at the police station but he failed

Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application filed by complainant

Validity

Though explana-tion for such delay was not forwarded by complainant but that did not mean that no incident had taken place as alleged in application

Complainant was not able to disclose any information with regard to commission of cognizable offence for registration of FIR

High Court directed the Station House Officer of police station concerned to follow provisions of S. 155, Cr.P.C. in case complainant would approach him, as presence of medical certificates of injured persons could not be lost sight of

Application was dismissed accordingly.

Both posts being permanent in nature, it could not be said that appointment and job of the employees were temporary in nature

Employees falling within the category of permanent employees, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 fully applied in their cases

Grievance applications had been filed with delay of 22 days; though sufficient cause was not mentioned in application for condonation of delay, but the employees could not be deprived of their rights on the grounds of limitation for the reason that they during their services approached the Authority and court for the regularization of their services

Embargo of limitation was not applicable to said employees

Courts always encourage the decision of the cases on merits, rather the litigant be non-suited on technical grounds including the point of limitation

Impugned withdrawal order, was set aside being without lawful authority

Tribunal directed that difference of the salaries of the employees be paid as regular employees.

In order to seek a temporary injunction, a party had to be vigilant and should approach the court without loss of time to show its bona fide

Delay in such matters normally disentitled a party from seeking relief of injunction

Revision was dismissed.

Appellants challenged order of Authority dated 29-12-2009 through appeal to the High Court filed on 25-2-2010 with a delay of 28 days

Contention of appellants was that copy of order dated 29-12-2009 was supplied to them two days prior to the filing of present appeal, and that the officials of the Authority with mala fide intention adopted an adverse attitude towards them and the delay in filing of present appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate

Validity

Order was made by the Authority on 29-12-2009 marked in the name of one of the appellants, but there was no endorsement as to when said order was served on him

Time of service was most important because period of limitation had to be counted from the date of service; which was missing

High Court, while keeping in view such circumstances, condoned the delay in filing of the appeal.

Delay in post-mortem examination is generally suggestive of a real possibility that time was consumed by police in procuring and planting eye-witnesses and in cooking up a story for prosecution before preparing police papers necessary for getting a post mortem examination of dead body conducted.

Period of limitation for filing appeal as prescribed under S. 23(1) of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, was thirty days

Period of limitation prescribed by the special law would prevail over the Limitation Act, 1908

Application made under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay, thus, was not competent in view of the bar contained in S. 29(2)(a)(b) thereof:

Even otherwise, reason of delay as stated in the petition had not been supported by any documents like medical certificate etc.

Neither any cogent reason had been given for condonation of delay, nor the delay of each day had been explained

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Defendant filed application under S. 34 of Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking stay of proceedings and referring the matter to arbitrator, as arbitration clause was available in the agreement between parties

Plea raised by plaintiff was that referring the matter to arbitrator would cause delay in proceedings

Validity

Plea raised by plaintiff was not a position for not referring the matter to arbitration, more particularly when it came to be appreciated from the perception that parties by choice willingly and knowingly chose such jurisdiction and that it could not be defeated as it would amount to usurping the control of domestic forum which plaintiff and defendant had agreed upon earlier in time when they arrived at executing the agreement

Was not proper to proceed into the matter for which previous consent was accorded by parties to each other for resolution before a forum other than High Court

As the parties had chosen to refer any dispute arising out of or in connection with it and matters contemplated therein would be settled by arbitration between them, therefore, the same must be referred to arbitration

High Court stayed proceedings of suit filed by plaintiff and referred the matter to arbitrator in accordance with provisions of agreement between parties

Application was allowed accordingly.

Service Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by civil servant and directed the authorities to consider him for promotion from the date when he became eligible for the post as there was vacancy available then

Validity,

State functionaries were mandated to act with certain amount of reasonableness

Such canon of due process of law was not observed in processing civil servant's promotion matter

Having acquired requisite experience and having authored number of articles required for post in question, the civil servant had legitimate expectancy for the post in question

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal was neither against the rules nor the law declared

Civil servant was eligible to be considered for promotion when substantive vacancy in promotion quota was available

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal directing the authorities to consider case of civil servant's promotion to post in question from the date when vacancy in his quota was available was unexceptionable

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Appeal was dismissed.

Service Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by civil servant and directed the authorities to consider him for promotion from the date when he became eligible for the post as there was vacancy available then

Validity

State functionaries were mandated to act with certain amount of reasonableness

Such canon of due process of law was not observed in processing civil servant's promotion matter

Having acquired requisite experience and having authored number of articles required for post in question, the civil servant had legitimate expectancy for the post in question

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal was neither against the rules nor the law declared

Civil servant was eligible to be considered for promotion when substantive vacancy in promotion quota was available

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal directing the authorities to consider case of civil servant's promotion to post in question from the date when vacancy in his quota was available was unexceptionable

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Appeal was dismissed.

Any delay in Talb-e-Muwathibat also termed as 'jumping demand' despite knowledge of sale, rendered the subsequent talbs inconsequential

Any delay in Talb-e-Muwathibat despite knowledge of sale was ipso facto fatal to the case.

Plaintiff filed suit for pre-emption on the ground that he was co-sharer in the property and had the common source of irrigation

Trial Court decreed the suit and Appellate Court dismissed the appeal

Contention of the defendant was that performance of the Talbs was not in accordance with law

Plaintiff's witnesses stated in cross-examination that when the plaintiff gained knowledge of the sale transaction, after 10/15 minutes he made a performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat

Other such witness stated that after about five minutes, jumping demand was made

Validity

If the necessary Talbs were not performed in accordance with law in a mode provided by S.13, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the right of pre-emption would be extinguished

Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had misread the evidence and made incorrect interpretation of the deposition of the two material witnesses

Petition was accepted by High Court.

Workman served grievance notice for redressal of his grievance and as said notice was not replied, workman filed grievance petition in the Labour Court along with application under S.65-B of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for condonation of delay

Grievance notice was served by the workman after about one year when he was declared fit for duty by the doctors

Since the grievance notice was barred by time, the grievance petition must also be treated as barred by time

Where the matter was barred by time the court could not go into merits of the controversy

In application for condonation of delay no ground whatsoever had been made for condoning the delay

Mere statement that workman was kept on promises by the employer was not sufficient to condone delay

Order passed by the Labour Court was set aside and grievance petition filed by workman was dismissed.

Appellant (husband of deceased insured) had always been vigilant to make his claim and it was only the Insurance Corporation to drag his claim in order to avoid payment

Holding the claim of appellant, in circumstances, to be beyond limitation or that after expiry of three years no cause of action remained with the appellant to approach the Insurance Tribunal, was error in law and fact.

Crime empties allegedly found at the place of occurrence were retained in police station and were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, along with the crime weapons, 12 days after the recovery of alleged weapons

Effect

Delay had destroyed the evidential value of such piece of evidence and the recoveries could not offer any corroboration to the ocular testimony.

Application for condonation of delay was not maintainable, however, if same was treated as maintainable, even then the ground urged for condonation of delay, that appellant was a layman, was not recognized under the law

No plausible ground for condonation of delay of 35 days having been made out, appeal was dismissed on ground of limitation.

Inordinate delay of almost 13 months in processing application for renewal/approval filed under S.2(36) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Department reported that application was not attended to in time because the office was under constraint to meet the budgetary targets and all efforts were focused on the point

Lapse was regretted and it had been informed that approval had now been renewed

Regret expressed on the admitted lapse was acknowledged by the Federal Tax Ombudsman and his prayer for closing the investigation was granted with the observation that positive appreciation of lapse caused by inattention to the matter and expression of regret over it was made to be realized down the line

Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that it will be appreciated if a reasonable time frame was laid down by the Regional Commissioner of Income' Tax for processing of such matters

Investigation proceedings were closed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.

Period/time which had statutorily been fired, could not be extended/condoned by Court, unless "sufficient cause" for not preferring appeal or application, within parameters of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 had been shown by way of filing independent application.

Doors of justice were closed after lapse of prescribed period of limitation, and no plea of injustice, hardship or ignorance, could be of any avail to litigant unless delay in filing appeal etc. was justified/legally accounted for and litigant was legally bound to justify reasons for each day's delay

Courts, in exceptional circumstances, were competent to condone delay in appropriate cases on compassionate grounds, if proved

Limitation when once started in no case, could be stopped.

Law would help diligent and would not support the indolent.

Reasons given for inordinate delay being quite unsatisfactory, application for condonation of delay, was dismissed.

Departmental appeal was filed by civil servant after delay of twenty-three days from date, of relieving order and' appeal before Service Tribunal was also barred by nine days Appellant was legally bound to prove that his departmental appeal as well as appeal before Service Tribunal were within time, but he had failed to prove the same. In absence of any application for condonation of such delay, appeal was liable to be dismissed on ground of limitation.

Civil servant could bring Departmental Appeal within thirty days of passing of order against him and if said appeal would remain un-disposed of un-responded for ninety days, civil servant would have thirty days period at his disposal to come to Service Tribunal where appeal would succeed on merits and delay, if any, could be condoned.