Limitation

  1. Bar of limitation cannot be ignored in all cases, simply because any order is found to be ab initio void. Naseeb Ullah v. Mumtaz Khan & others 1993 SCR 44 (B)
  2. If the suit, appeal or other cause is brought beyond the limitation, it is for the party seeking the relief to allege and prove that suit or appeal etc has been filed within the period of limitation — If prima facie, any  such proceedings are time barred the ground for exemption must be stated in the plaint or appeal. Naseeb Ullah v. Mumtaz Khan & others 1993 SCR 44 (A)
  3. Bar of limitation is not a factor in context if the failure of a party to supply proper Court fee under the Court Fees Act and section 149 and Order VII rule 11 of the C.P.C. Executive Engineer Munir v. Raja Muhammad Nawaz Khan 1994 SCR 287 (C)
  4. Condonation of delay — Once it is shown that the parties had not been summoned to hear the judgment the limitation would start from the date of knowledge — The period fixed by the statute would be available to such a party in full and there is no need of explaining as to why petition for leave to appeal was not filed at once. Ch. M. Hussain v. Mir Afzal & others 1995 SCR 227 (A)
  5. Time spent in pursuing a wrong remedy cannot be excused.Ch. M. H.v. Mir Afzal 1995 SCR 227
  6. Irrespective of fact as to which of provision of law could govern the limitation, the fact remains that the point cannot be decided without framing the issue and giving the parties an opportunity of leading evidence. M. Aziz Khan and 2 others v. M. Shafi & another 1997 SCR 172 (A)
  7. Appeals filed by the appellants before High Court u/s 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance have been dismissed as barred by limitation — Appeals u/s 137 of the Income Tax Ordinance were filed in the Supreme Court — It was contended before the High Court that limitation was to run from the date of communication u/s.135(8) — This plea was rejected by the High Court on the ground that one of the Directors of Qureshi Ghee Mills Ltd. appeared before the Income Tax Officer in connection with recovery proceedings and thus acquired the knowledge that the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and limitation in any case started from the date of knowledge — The High Court rightly reached the conclusion that the appellant company had become aware that the appeal filed before the Income Tax Tribunal had been dismissed — It is well settled by now that where a judgment has not been conveyed to a party limitation starts running from the date of knowledge — The proposition that unless result of the appeal is communicated limitation would not start running cannot be accepted because then it would mean that it will not be possible to file an appeal if the tribunal does not intimate the result to the party. Qureshi Vegetable Ghee Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and 3 others  2000 SCR 459 (A)
  8. Condonation of delay — Misplacement of notice served on counsel — Effect of — Even if the period of limitation would reckoned from 1.1.1999, the date on which the notice was served on counsel for the petitioner, the petition for leave to appeal is barred by 17 days — The affidavit that notice served on counsel for the petitioner was missed, does not constitute a sufficient cause for excusing delay because even if the notice was lost, the counsel for the petitioner had the knowledge of the announcement of the decision and he could further confirm the matter from the office of the Service Tribunal — Therefore, the affidavit to the effect that the counsel for the petitioner in the Service Tribunal could not inform him of decision due to misplacement of notice does not bring the case within the ambit of a bona fide mistake rather this is a case of negligence which cannot be excused. Muhammad Rafique v. Muhammad Shafi Dar and 2 others 2000 SCR 215 (A)
  9. If appeal is filed by a person who was not a party before the Court below limitation runs from date of knowledge. Manzoor Ahmad v.  Muhammad Sabbir and 2 others 2000 SCR 500 (A)
  10. The period of limitation prescribed for lodging an appeal before the Supreme Court is 60 days against the judgment of Shariat Court — Appeal barred by 16 days.  Muhammad Shafat and another  v. The State 2002 SCR 450 (C)
  11. Petition is barred by limitation of two days for which no explanation whatsoever has been furnished in the memo of appeal before this Court nor an application has been moved for condonation of delay or any affidavit has been filed by the petitioner furnishing any explanation for delay. Kh. SIAB KHALID vs. SECRETARYFORESTS & 5 others 2002 SCR 474 (A)
  12. Delay of each and every day is to be explained by the party whose petition/appeal is barred by limitation as the delay of each and every day has to be explained by the party who has been negligent enough to file its petition/appeal beyond the period of limitation. Kh. SIAB KHALID vs. SECRETARYFORESTS & 5 others 2002 SCR 474 (B)
  13. Petition barred by limitation of two days — Dismissed. Muhammad Javaid and another v. Shamim Akhter 2003 SCR 43 (A)
  14. No period of limitation was prescribed for revision in the Limitation Act or under the C.P.C. but a practice was developed and the Courts insisted upon the observance of the same by the litigant public to seek the revisional jurisdiction of High Court within a period of ninety days — Party availing revisional jurisdiction beyond such period is required to explain such delay. Defence Department of Pakistan v. Muhammad Khan and another 2004 SCR 459 (A)
  15. Petition barred by limitation of 7 days — Held: If a petition is barred by limitation, then it is duty of the party seeking the condonation of delay to explain the delay of each and every day. Fakhar Mahmood v. Fahmida Begum and 10 others 2004 SCR 526 (B)
  16. No limitation runs against a person who was not a party to the proceedings which adversely affects his rights — Question of limitation is applicable against that party only who has contested the claim and despite knowledge of an adverse order does not challenge the order well in time in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Muhammad Sultan v. Sardar Begum & 6 others 2005 SCR 80 (A)
  17. Question of limitation was not pressed before the High Court — There is no affidavit of the counsel that he actually pressed this ground before the High Court and the same has not been resolved —Therefore, it is correct that the question of limitation was not raised before the High Court — The same cannot be raised before this Court at this belated stage. Muhammad Aslam and another v. Muhammad Rashid 2006 SCR 11 (A)
  18. Period of limitation can be relaxed by the Tribunal or any other Court provided some sufficient cause is placed before the forum for condonation. Iftikhar Haider v. Superintendent of Police and 9 others 2007 SCR 540 (A)   
  19. Art. 103 — Suit for recovery of dower — Suit was filed after five years of separation — If limitation is taken from the date when dower was lastly refused then the suit was filed within the period of five years while the limitation for filing the suit was six years — Through an amendment in Article 103 the period of limitation was increased as six years instead of three years — Held: The learned Judge of the Shariat Court wrongly held the limitation as three years. Nishat Kausar  v. Muhammad Basharat 2008 SCR 73 (A)
  20. Time for filing the suit against disable person, who was a minor shall not start running till the disability is ceased or minor becomes major — When minor becomes major or disability is ceased the limitation against the person shall start running and he will be entitled to file a suit within same period of limitation which is provided in third shedule of Limitation Act or S. 48 of C.P.C. If suit is not filed within time specified then his title in the property would be extinguished. Muhammad Hafeez Khan and 5 others v. Muhammad Nazir and 2 others 2009 SCR 305 (C)
  21. S. 4 — AJ&K Service Tribunals Act 1975 — An aggrieved civil servant may prefer an appeal before the Service Tribunal within 90 days on communication of order whether the order is original or appellate — If a civil servant is aggrieved from an original order then he may file appeal from that order within 90 days of the communication of the order and if he is aggrieved from an appellate order of the authority then he may file  appeal within 90 days from the communication of the order of appellate authority — Held: The period of limitation shall reckoned from the date of communication.  M. Riaz Khan v. IGP 2010 SCR 131 (D) 1994 SCR 214 rel.
  22. Departmental authority decided the appeal on 27.5.1999 — Decision was not communicated to the appellant — Appellant moved an application to S.P  District Bagh who made remarks that no order on his appeal has been received in the office — Thereafter he applied to C.P.O. and after obtaining copy of order he filed appeal in Service Tribunal — Held: It is proved that order was never communicated to him — After obtaining the knowledge that his appeal has been decided by I.G.P., he filed appeal promptly — The appeal was within time — Held further: Point of limitation was not argued before Service Tribunal   — Service Tribunal treated the appeal within time — Held: Argument is not available to the appellant in this Court. M. Riaz Khan v.  Inspector General of Police and 19 others 2010 SCR 131 (E)
  23. From appellant’s own evidence it is clearly proved that the suit was filed after the period of more than thirteen years — According to decree dated 21.3.1969 Muhammad Shafi was owner of disputed land measuring 11 marlas and the sale-deed executed by Muhammad Rafique is not valid one because the vendor was not owner of this piece of land — Held: The sale-deed dated 26.4.1984 is although invalid, but the same has not been challenged within prescribed period of limitation, whereas this Court has enunciated principle of law in many cases that even a void order must be challenged within prescribed time to get rid of its adverse effects. Fazal Jan & 5 others v. Muhammad Saleem Khan & 22 others 2010 SCR 259 (A)
  24. Respondent was initially appointed on 7.6.1980 as Stenographer — No one has challenged his initial appointed order before the proper forum at proper time — Held: The validity of initial appointment order after a period of more than 22 years cannot be look into, especially indirectly in an appeal against the promotion order. Shafique Ahmed v. The Hon’ble Chief Justice AJ&K High Court & 4 others 2010 SCR 522 (B)
  25. Ex parte decree/consent decree — Setting aside of — Application under section 12(2), CPC — Limitation for setting aside an ex parte/consent decree by way of an application under section 12(2), CPC is three years — Held: If a person is not a party in a case, there is no limitation for filing a suit for cancellation of decree adversely affecting him. M. Bashir Khan v. M. Sharif & 8 others 2011 SCR 214 (F)
  26. Condonation of delay — Principle of law — Knowledge of counsel is knowledge of the party. Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Muhammad Shafi and 9 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 1102 (C)
  27. Question of — Proposition of law — Without crossing this law, there is no justification to enter into discussion on merits of the case. Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. M. Shafi  2013 SCR 1102 (B)
  28. Service appeal — appellant challenged the orders for entering the name of respondents in select list ‘F’ and promotion orders of respondents which have been passed year’s back—in fact, he wants reopening of all orders in the cover of an order regarding determination of seniority.  Held: the appellant failed to file appeal within the prescribed period of limitation against the order from which he was legally aggrieved. The appeal against the promotion orders and select list ‘F’ held time barred. Sardar Ghalib Hussain  v. I.G.P & 6 others 2014 SCR 239 (A&B)
  29. Writ — limitation of — Held; no-doubt, there is no prescribed limitation for filing writ petition. It is an extraordinary constitutional remedy which has to be provided in extraordinary circumstances, thus, according to celebrated principle of law, the Courts have to apply their minds according to the material facts, prayed relief and other related legal and factual propositions of each case. In some cases, even if an aggrieved approaches the Court after passage of year’s time, writ jurisdiction can be exercised to undo the continuing wrong or enforcement of any legal or fundamental right.  But in some cases, even delay of couple of weeks’ time may disentitle the appellant from relief if due to happening of irreversible events or developments during this period, vested legal rights have been created in favour of the other party. M. Mobeen Kh. v. Farzand Begum 2014 SCR 291 (A)
  30. Exclusion of time spent in obtaining copies for purpose of limitation — appellants applied for the copies of judgment on 22nd October, 2011— the Court fee filed on 25thOctober, 2011 and the copies were ready for delivery on the same date but the same were delivered on 31st October, 2011 — proposition; whether the appellants were entitled for condonation for the period commencing between the day; the copies were ready for delivery and the day, the copies were delivered — the Court while relying upon the judgment of Full Court in the case titled Muhammad Siddique  v.  Muhammad Aslam (Civil Appeal No.106 of 2004 decided on 2nd May, 2013) wherein it was observed that the party is entitled for exclusion of time actually spent in obtaining the copies of the judgment and decree, from the date of application to the date when the copies were delivered, held: that under the provisions of ‘the Civil Courts Act, 1977 (1920 A-D) as adapted in AJ&K, the instructions issued by the AJ&K High Court vide Circular No.1/65 for supply of copies, the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 and the judgment in Muhammad Siddique’s case, the appellants are entitled for exclusion of time actually spent in obtaining the copies of the judgment and decree appealed from. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. M. Qadir Javid and another 2014 SCR 479 (A&B)
  31. Supreme Court Rules — Order XII & XIII — Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — section 42(11) (D) — limitation — delay — condonation of — judgment of High Court was delivered on 2.7.2013 — PLAs were filed on19.8.2013 and 2.9.2013 — Applications for treating PLAs as appeals were filed on 24.2.2014 and 28.2.2014, respectively, after a period of around 6 months from filing of PLAs — Held:  Applications have been filed beyond the period of limitation fixed in the case reported as 2004 SCR 459 where it is categorically held that the limitation for filing direct appeal is 60 days — the petitioners are not entitled to condonation of delay. Ghulam Asghar v. Sarwar Begum & others 2015 SCR  141 (E) 2013 SCR 175 & Ch. M. Afzal vrs. MDA & others rel.
  32. Mixed question of facts and law — without recording evidence, it is not possible to decide the question of law i.e. the limitation particularly in the circumstances when a party takes a specific stand that the fact was not in its knowledge so, the suit is within time from the date of knowledge and also claims that the plaintiff is entitled for condonation of delay under section 5 of limitation Act, 1908. M. Yousaf & another v. Ali Dad & 32 others 2016 SCR 64 (A) 1997 SCR 172 rel.
  33. Filing of appeal in the Supreme Court — According to the enforced law as well as the principle of law enunciated by Supreme Court, the limitation for filing of appeal in the Supreme Court is 60 days. Ibrahim Yaqoob & 6 others v. Ghulam Murtaza & 5 others 2016 SCR 896 (A)
  34. Delay — explanation of — not requisite of law — where cause filed within time — after exclusion of time spent in obtaining copies — The argument of learned Counsel for the respondents that the delay occurred in obtaining certified copies has to be explained, is concerned, it has no value in view of peculiar facts of this case. The explanation of delay is required when any case has brought beyond the prescribed limitation, whereas, while computing the limitation keeping in view the statutory provisions of section 12 of Limitation Act, the revision petition was well within time. Therefore, the question of explanation of delay does not arise. M. Hanif & another v. M. Arif & others 2016 SCR 956 (B)
  35. Limitation for filing appeal before Supreme Court — 60 days — Neither the appellants filed a valid appeal nor they applied for conversion of the petition into appeal within prescribed limitation, i.e. 60 days — Appeal is not maintainable on this sole ground. Khalid Mehmood  & 2 others v. Collector Land Acquisition & 3 others 2016 SCR 1075 (B)
  36. Negligence of a party — condonation of delay — it is settled law that delay of each and every day has to be explained — a party who remained slept over his rights being negligent, does not deserve for any condonation of delay. M. Saleem Khan v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2016 SCR 1084 (A) 2014 SCR 1571 rel.
  37. It is settled principle of law that limitation starts running from the date of knowledge. Zulfiqar Ali & others v. Prof. (R) M. Aslam Khan & 13 others 2016 SCR 1139 (A) 1995  SCR 227 ref.
  38. Mixed question of law and facts — The question of limitation has to be specifically pleaded and proved. M. Rasheed Khan & 7 others v. M. Ayub Khan & 6 others 2016 SCR 1278 (C)
  39. —fraud—in case of—limitation starts from—date of knowledge—of such fraud—it appears from the record that Sumundar Shaikh obtained the suit land on ghala batai. The controversy started when the plaintiff-appellants started reconstructing the house and the respondents objected to the same by alleging that they are owners of the land by virtue of the gift-deed and in this way, it cannot be held that suit was beyond the period of limitation. It is by now a settled principle of law that in case of fraud, the limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the fraud. Muhammad Maqbool & others v. Muhammad Younas & another 2017 SCR 903 (D)
  40.  —rejection of plaint on ground of—limitation— where mixed question of law and fact— suite required to be decided—after recording of evidence—The question of limitation is mixed question or law and the fact, which also requires to be decided after recording of the evidence. In this scenario, we are convinced that the trial Court has wrongly rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Marim Bibi & others v. Hakim Ali & others 2017 SCR 944 (D)
  41.                 —Limitation is mixed question of the fact and law which cannot be resolved without recording of evidence. Azad Govt. & another v. Waheed Ahmed Khan & 10 others 2017 SCR 175 (I) 2015 SCR 653 & 2016 SCR 902 rel.
  42. —Order VII, rule 11, CPC—rejection of plaint— being barred by limitation—condonation of delay—minor—required to specifically plead when he attained the age of majority and when the impugned fact/document came into his knowledge—vague assertion is this regard not sustainable— It was categorically stated by the plaintiffs that they were minor but there nothing is mentioned that when they attained the age of majority and from that date their suit is within limitation. It was enjoined upon the plaintiffs to claim the exemption in limitation by pleading specifically. No exact date and time of knowledge is given by the plaintiffs.  They, in fact,have based their claim on a vague assertion.  The learned Civil Judge as well as the learned High Court has considered every aspect of the case and came to the conclusion that the suit is barred by law and its continuation is wastage of time and abuse of the process of law. Muhammad Mumtaz & others v. Abdul Rashid & others 2017 SCR 1485 (A)
  43. —When a party has not been served in the prescribed manner or proceedings have been conducted and kept secret by practising fraud, the limitation for setting aside such proceedings, shall start from the date of knowledge. Zaib-un-Nisa v. Mehbood Hussain Shah 2017 SCR 1644 (D) 2013 SCR 85 ref.
  44. —not a pure question of law—it is mixed question of facts and law which requires proof. Syed Mehar Ali Shah vs Syeda Nudrat Bibi & others 2018 SCR 9 (A)
  45. —The appeal of the appellants cannot be treated beyond the prescribed period of limitation because they were not party before the High Court. Javed Ejaz & others vs Iftikhar Ahmed Khilji & others 2018 SCR 331 (C) 1997 SCR 26 ref
  46. – See Ch. Muhammad Shoukat vs Custodian of Evacuee Property 2018 SCR 456 (C)
  47. —the question of limitation is not only question of law rather it is also mixed question of facts and has to be decided in the light of peculiar facts of each case. Khadam Hussain Shah vs Muhammad Aslam Shah & others 2018 SCR 888 (A)
  48. —the question of limitation in view of the averments of plaint as a whole also cannot be decided in vacuum without recording of evidence. Khadam Hussain Shah vs Muhammad Aslam Shah & others 2018 SCR 888 (B)
  49.  —Mixed question of law and fact—Jurisdiction and powers of Service Tribunal—The question of communication of the impugned order is not merely question of law and it is also question of fact — Service Tribunal is vested with the powers for determination of question of fact to record evidence, thus, such like proposition can be best resolved after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and providing them to bring on record the required proof or material. Akhtar Hussain Tahir v. Secretary Social Welfare 2019 SCR 67 (B)
  50. —Land Acquisition—reference application—limitation starts running once reference is filed with concerned Collector— the award announced on 18.10.2012 — reference application filed on 12.11.2012, before the Collector. Collector sent the same to the Reference Judge after a period of 6 months—Held: the landowner filed reference application within limitation, therefore, due to the lapses on the part of the Collector, he cannot be penalized. Raja Umar Hayat Khan v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 143 (A)
  51.            —condonation of delay—exclusion of time, consumed before the wrong forum—mistaken advice—time spent before wrong forum cannot be excluded—argument: till withdrawal of writ petition the impugned order remained suspended, therefore, the said period should have been excluded. Held: under law if a litigant spends time in pursuing a remedy at a wrong forum under a mistaken advice, the period spent by him goes waste and delay cannot be condoned on this ground. Sheikh Ahtaram-ul-Ibrar v. Administrator District Council Muzaffarabad & others 2019 SCR 861 (B)
  52. —application for restoration of reference—which was hopelessly time barred being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation i.e. 90 days—contention that the provisions of CPC are not applicable in reference proceeding, hence, there is no limitation for filing application for restoration of the reference—Held: that is devoid any force. S.53 of the Land Acquisition Act, clearly postulates that the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to the proceedings before the reference Court. Muhammad Iqbal Abbasi & 5 others v. Development Authority Muzaffarabad & 3 others 2020 SCR 408 (A) 1985 SCMR 1865, PLD 1968 AJK 26 ref
  53. —condonation of—wrong forum—if a litigant spends time in pursuing a remedy at a wrong forum under a mistaken advice, the period spent by him goes waste and delay cannot be condoned on this ground— Jawad Sabir & 5 others v. Inspector General of Police & 5 others 2020 SCR 545 (B) 2019 PSC 1161 ref
  54. —Delay—condonation of— after signing the judgment an order was passed for intimation to the counsel for the parties—notice not served upon the appellant or his counsel—delay condoned— appeal was treated within time. Sultan Mehmood  Versus Commissioner Mirpur Division & 4 others 2021 SCR 89 (B)
  55. —Question of limitation is mixed question of law and facts which cannot be decided without recording evidence. Arshad Mehmood & 23 others Versus Chief Administrator Auqaf & 19 others 2021 SCR 364 (A)
  56. —Writ—review  before Custodian—plea of respondents being abroad could not attain knowledge of allotment—petition dismissed on ground of limitation— the respondents have categorically taken plea that they were abroad for earning livelihood and after coming back,  they got knowledge of the allotment, they filed the review petition before the Custodian for cancellation of the allotment and PRTO—-this is  question of fact to be determined after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence pro and contra—- dismissal of review petition without recording of evidence, on ground of limitation  not justified. Masood Ahmed & another Versus Muhammad Iqbal & 26 others 2021 SCR 659 (B)
  57. —Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed— allegedly made in excess of share—suit filed after eleven years of sale deed—plea of having knowledge of sale deed three months prior to filing of suit—Order VII, rule 6, CPC, requires that when the suit is filed beyond limitation it is mandatory for the plaintiff to enter the same as a ground in the plaint or file separate application for exemption of the limitation but no explanation whatsoever has been furnished in that regard—the witnesses of the plaintiff deposed in evidence that the plaintiff got knowledge of the sale deed after 7/8 year of its execution. Appeal dismissed. Khadim Hussain & others v. Mehrban Hussain & others  2022 SCR 1016 (A)
  58. —Plea of fraud— Held: even in case of fraud the suit has to be filed within three years from the date of knowledge of fraud. Khadim Hussain & others v. Mehrban Hussain & others  2022 SCR 1016 (B) 1998 SCR 204 rel.
  59. —Inheritance—limitation for filing suit— Now it is settled law that in the matter of inheritance, no time limit or limitation is fixed for claiming a share by a person in the inheritance of predecessor, because the inheritance always open just after the death of a person and every legal heir becomes entitled to get his/her respective share and his/her legal heirs cannot be deprived merely on the ground that he/she had got married in Dogra regime. Muhammad Zareed & others v. Muhammad Haroon & others 2022 SCR 1685 (T) 2017 SCR 265 & 2020 SCMR, 668 rel.
  60. — suit for specific performance of agreement-to-sell — limitation — knowledge of refusal — Held: in earlier suit filed in 1983, for specific performance of oral agreement-to-sell, allegedly made in 1969, and adverse possession and in fresh suit filed in 1990, for specific performance [deed] of agreement-to-sell made in 1982, consideration amount was same and respondent No.1 was the acceptor/second party in both transactions — Held: Had the agreement-to-sell been made with any of his predecessors-ininterest, he would have had the argument to the effect that he had no knowledge of the agreement-to-sell made in 1969 or 1982. When he himself was the acceptor/second party to the written agreement-to-sell, then there is it obvious truth that he was very well aware of its existence. If he wanted to have succeeded his suit for specific performance of agreement-to-sell, then it was his first suit, wherein he should have based his claim on basis of agreement-to-sell made in 1982. However, he chose to fiction the pleas of oral agreement-to-sell and adverse possession, possibly due to the non-availability of the deed of agreement-to-sell or for reasons best known to him. Kh. Muhammad Azam & others v. Khadim Hussain & others 2023 SCR 372 (A)
  61. — suit for specific performance of agreement-to-sell — limitation — Argument: The counsel for the respondent took stance that as the second suit was filed after permission of the District Court to withdraw the earlier suit and file the second suit for specific performance of agreement-to-sell and appellants did not challenge the said order of the District Court, which has finality, therefore, the limitation shall stand counted from the filing of the second suit. Held: The order of the District Court for permission of withdrawal of the suit and filing of fresh suit is not part of record of the instant case. In absence of the said order of the District Court, we are unable to make us convinced that permission to file the fresh suit ipso facto absolved the legal liabilities of the plaintiff-respondent No.1, herein, in fresh suit and limitation is condoned. Argument repelled. Kh. Muhammad Azam & others v. Khadim Hussain & others 2023 SCR 372 (C)
  62. — delay — condonation of — wrong forum — held: if a litigant spends twice in pursuing a remedy at a wrong forum under a mistaken advice, the period spend by him goes waste and delay cannot be condoned on this ground. Mst. Shameem Akhtar & another versus Manzoor Ali & another 2023 SCR 711 (A)
error: Content is protected !!