Condonation of delay

  1. Delay in filing appeal before Service Tribunal was not intentional but due to judicial pronouncements which gave rise to various complications — Delay condoned. Mehboob-ur-Rehman v. Ishfaq Ahmed & 2 others 1999 SCR 300 (C)
  2. If it is found that limitation in filing revision petitions/appeals before the Commissioner would be deemed to have been condoned by necessary implication. There was no justification in remanding the case to the Commissioner — Revenue Commissioner decided the review petition on merits despite the fact that question of limitation was hotly debated — Commissioner did not specifically recorded that he was condoning the delay — Yet the delay would be deemed to have been condoned by necessary implication. Shah M. Khan  v. M. Haleem and others 1999 SCR 189 (A)
  4. A party seeking the condonation of delay has to satisfactorily explain the delay of each and every day and the explanation put forth must be a reasonable and cogent. Azad Government and another v.  Zaid Ullah Khan and 8 others 2000 SCR 614 (A)
  5. No date was fixed for delivery of the copies to the appellant on 27.3.1999 and 28.3.1999 to 30.3.1999 were closed holidays, the appellant is entitled to the Condonation of delay. Andleeb Sahir Butt v. Naveed Hussain and 2 others 2000 SCR 57 (B)
  6. The affidavit and medical certificate are totally silent on the point as to when the appellant fell ill — Certificate does not even carry any date on which it was signed — The affidavit and the medical certificate are silent on the point as to when the appellant remained under treatment as out door patient — Appellant was treated as out door patient and was not admitted in Hospital makes it doubtful that he was actually confined to bed — Held: That medical certificate as well as affidavit lack factors for implicit reliance —  Application for condonation of delay is rejected. Fateh Din v. Muhammad Boota and 11 others 2000 SCR 542 (A)
  7. he fact that copies were obtained and were misplaced does not make out case of condonation — Misplacing a document is an example of carelessness or negligence. Ajaib Hussain and another v. Zareen Akhar and 11 others 2000 SCR 70 (D)
  8. The petitioner was well aware of the notification issued by the Registrar of this Court and it was only for this purpose that he filed the petition before the Registry office and obtained a relief of ad interim pre-arrest  bail in his favour from vacation Judge , on the one hand the petitioner claimed a relief from the vacation Judge praying that he may be admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail and on the other he pressed into service the submission that whole period of summer vacation should not be computed in the period of limitation — Conduct of petitioner contradictory in nature — He does not deserve the condonation of delay, particularly so when the ground has not been taken in application for condonation of delay. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi v. Director/Deputy Director Anti-corruption & 4 others 2001 SCR 272 (D)
  9.  After the amendment in law, the limitation for filing the suiat of pre-emption is four months from the date of registration of the sale-deed — Whereas suit was filed after about ten months of the registration of the sale-deed — Application for condonation of delay was made about five months after the institutions of the suit — It has been averred in the application that the respondent was not aware of the date of execution and the registration of sale-deed — The plaintiff was aware of the fact that the sale deed pertaining to 12 marlas of land was registered — There was no explanation as to why the respondent kept the mum for seeking the condonation of delay — Even otherwise, the discretion with regard to the condonation of delay or refusing the same by the Courts below is hardly interfered with by this Court. M. Malik v. Yaqoob Javed Batalvi 2002 SCR 47 (B)
  10. On account of wilful absence from duty her services were terminated — She remained engaged in pursuing remedies not admissible to her under service laws-Only such period can be condoned which was spent in wrong forum despite due care and diligence — The forum selected were not chosen with due care and diligence the period spent in pursuing such forums cannot be condoned — Held: The Service Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal in limine. IQBAL BEGUM vs. AZAD GOVERNMENT & 6 others 2002 SCR 532 (B)
  11. Right of appeal or revision is the creation of the statute — Anybody interested in availing such remedy is obliged to observe the parameters laid down in the statute for such remedies — The appellant has not denied that he had no notice that concession of bail has been refused to him, therefore, when order of the Court come to his notice he should have filed his appeal within next sixty days — If parties were involved in negotiations to settle the dispute even then after filing appeal the terms for settlement outside the Court and in case of compromise of parties the same would have been given effect by the Court — On such like excuse as has been taken in the present appeal the period of limitation prescribed under law cannot be condoned. Abdul Ghafoor v. State and another 2002 SCR 332 (A)
  12. Vague pleading supported by a vague affidavit does not furnish sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in lodging a writ petition in the High Court — Held: Writ petition was suffering from laches and liable to be dismissed. Faiz Akbar  v. Nasim Begum & 8 others 2003 SCR 240 (D)
  13. Without crossing the bar of limitation the Courts are not justified to enter into the merits of the case — The delay can be condoned only if some sufficient cause has been shown in the application seeking condonation of delay. M. Aslam and another v.Muhammad Rashid 2006 SCR 11 (B)
  14. Application for condonation of delay does not reveal the exact date on which the appellants came to know that Collector has issued award — However, it has been mentioned that an attested copy of award was procured on 9.6.2003 — If this date is considered to be date of information, the appellants were bound to file their reference within six weeks from 9.6.2003 which comes to 22.7.2003 — They could file the reference on 22.7.2003 or at the most before 25.7.2003 whereas reference was filed on 12.12.2003 after about more than four months — Held: It was enjoined upon the appellants to mention the exact date on which they came to know of the issuance of award. Govt. of Pakistan and another v. Syed Ghulam Haider Shah and 5 others 2007 SCR 175 (B)
  15. After excluding the time spent in obtaining the copy of impugned order the petition is barred by 34 days — Learned Advocate for appellant was asked as to what is the explanation for delay, he stated that appellant fell ill — No proof is on record neither can this be a ground for condonation of delay — Held: The time once starts running, does not break for the-purpose of legal remedy. Haji Umar Zaman v. Nazeer Hussain & 3 others 2008 SCR 114 (A)
  16. The question of condonation of delay and extension of period of limitation can arise, if the appeal or application, as the case may be, is filed after the period of limitation in which case the applicant is to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within limitation period so as to be entitled to seek condonation for delayed period under section 5 of Limitation Act. Zahida Parveen v.  Masood Khan 2008 SCR 159 (A)
  17. P.L.A. filed after 7 years and 252 days — The contention that the petitioner was abroad, therefore could not file the petition within time has no substance — Negligence of the petitioner is no ground for condonation of delay — Delay of each and every day is to be explained — P.L.A. dismissed. Azhar Hussain v. Mirpur Development Authority & 5 others 2008 SCR 275 (A)
  18. An affidavit was attached with the application for condonation of delay before District Judge and stamp paper was purchased on 26.1.2006 which clearly shows that on 26.1.2006 he came to the Courts, purchased the stamp paper and sworn the affidavit for condonation of delay, but the appeal was not filed upto 3.2.2006.The petitioner has filed to explain the delay of each and every day. Ali Khan v. Mst. MarjeenaBegum and 3 others 2008 SCR 280 (A)
  19. The appeal of the petitioner before the District Judge was hopelessly time-barred — There was no solid reason for condonation of delay — A medical certificate was filed with the petition for leave to appeal which was issued on 27.1.2007 — It has no relevancy at all with the present case — No legal point is involved in the petition — Leave refused. Ali Khan v. Mst. Marjeena Begum and 3 others 2008 SCR 280 (B)
  20. Review — Objection with regard to the review petition being barred by limitation of 5 days merits no consideration in the circumstances of the case for reasons — At the time of passing the judgment under review, the relevant amended provision of law was not to notice of the Court, as such, the same was not considered and applied — Amended law was not within the knowledge of petitioner — Prayer has been made for Suo motu action in exercise of its inherent powers — Held: That for reasons it is a fit case to condone delay in filing the review petition and it is ordered accordingly. Custodian Evacuee property v. Muhammad Ashraf & another 2010 SCR 361 (B)
  21. Delay of each and every day has to be explained by the party who seeks condonation of delay — Law settled. Ehtesab Bureau v. Ghulam Sarwar 2013 SCR 720 (A)
  22. Negligence of party — accruing of valuable right — Condonation of delay is not mere technicality — when by efflux of time, valuable rights are accrued to the other party due to carelessness and negligence of a party, the same cannot be set at naught — party slept over his right being negligent, does not deserve for any condonation of delay.Ch. M. Zaman v. Amir Hanif 2014 SCR 1571 (C)
  23. Neither any satisfactory explanation nor any legal justification — legal consequence is dismissal of appeal being time barred. Shoukat Hussain v. D.I.G Police & others 2015 SCR 1311 (B) Javaid Ejaz vs. Authority & others (civil appeal No. 19/2014) and Nisar Ahmed Abbasi vs. Forests  Department& others (civil appeal No. 235 / 2014,  decided  on  5. 5. 2015) ref.
  24. Negligence of a party — firstly  the appellant applied for the certified copies after more than 20 days; secondly, while applying for certified copies the appellant did not provide stamps to the issuing authority and when he provided the same on 22.04.2014 the copies were handed over to him — the time consumed in obtaining the certified copies was also consumed due to the negligence of the appellant — after obtaining the certified copies on 22.04.2014, the appellant filed petition for leave to appeal after 5 days for which no explanation has been offered. Another aspect of the case is that the petition for leave to appeal was signed on 23.04.2014 by the counsel but the same was filed on 27.04.2014 — application for condonation of delay has been filed on 31.10.2015, after more than one year — Held: the measures adopted by the appellant while obtaining certified copies for filing petition for leave to appeal or application for condonation of delay show negligence/non-seriousness — Further held: it is settled principle of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained, whereas, the appellant failed to explain the same. Muhammad Idress v. Assistant Collector Excise & 2 others 2016 SCR 533  (A&B) Sain & others vs. Alam Din and others (Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2010 decided on 12.7.2012) rel. 
  25. —appeal dismissed for non-prosecution—application filed for restoration—objected on ground of limitation—the appellant has categorically mentioned in the grounds of the application for restoration that due to his illness and operation of his prostrate, he could not attained the knowledge of dismissal of appeal and on a joining the office he attained knowledge and within two days after consulting his counsel filed the application for restoration. The application for restoration was dismissed even without hearing the counsel of the appellant. Appeal accepted, order impugned set aside and case remanded to the Service Tribunal for decision afresh after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both parties. Muhammad Kabeer Khan v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 610 (B)
  26. —Limitation—condonation of delay—consumed before wrong forum —matter pursued before High Court—later approached the Service Tribunal—Contention: impugned order remained suspended at wrong forum—delay before proper forum be excluded on ground of suspension of impugned order by the High Court in writ petition—Held: mere on the strength of the suspension order passed by the High Court, delay could not be condoned. The Service Tribunal rightly dismissed appeal on ground of limitation. Sheikh Ahtaram-ul-Ibrar v. Administrator District Council Muzaffarabad & others 2019 SCR 861 (C)
  27. —Law is well settled that when prescribed period is elapsed then the party seeking condonation of delay has to explain each and every day for filing the application beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Muhammad Iqbal Abbasi & 5 others v. Development Authority Muzaffarabad & 3 others 2020 SCR 408 (B) PLJ 2009 SC 185 ref
  28. — The reason given by the appellant for condonation of delay is that at the time of issuance of impugned notification the Service Tribunal was not functional, hence, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court and got issued the status quo order and soon after, the Service Tribunal became functional, the appeal was filed. Held—that the appellant cannot be permitted to seek condonation of delay on such a lame excuse. In fact, the Service Tribunal was non-functional due to vacant posts of Chairman and Members, however, the registry offices of the Service Tribunal were open, hence, the proper course for the appellant was to file the appeal before the Service Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation and thereafter approach the High Court for immediate redressal of his grievance. Muhammad Qadeer v. Minister of Revenue Deptt. & others 2022 SCR 1426 (C)
error: Content is protected !!