Delay

  1. The question of condonation of delay can not be considered before the filing of the application – Condonation has nexus with reasonable ground and an order of condonation can not be passed in vaccum, whether impliedly or expressly. M. Nazir v. Khan Afsar Khan 1993 SCR 112 (B)
  2. Delay condonation of — Wrong advice of the counsel — A mistaken or wrong advice by the counsel without due care and diligence is no ground for condoning the delay. Ali Gohar v. Zaighum Saleem & others 1995 SCR 359 (C)
  3. Limitation would start from the date of announcement of the judgment of Shariat Court. Sanaullah Raja v. Muhammad Shafi and 2 others 1997 SCR 149 (A)
  4. Condonation of delay — Petitioner was an interested party in the matter — Notice under section 561-A Cr.P.C. — Warrant of arrest issued by Magistrate against the petitioner at Rawalpindi — Held: There is hardly any room of this argument that as the petitioner was not entitled to notice he was debarred from seeking the condonation of delay or to file revision petition. Sanaullah Raja v. Muhammad Shafi and 2 others 1997 SCR 149 (B)
  5. It has not been stipulated either in section 5 of the limitation Act or in the Supreme Court Rules that there must be application for condonation of delay. Sanaullah Raja v. Muhammad Shafi and 2 others 1997 SCR 149 (C)
  6. Application for condonation of delay — If the delay in filing an appeal or revision stand explained by the record then there is no need of separate application — Delay condoned. Sanaullah Raja v. Muhammad Shafi and 2 others 1997 SCR 149 (D)
  7. Condonation of delay — Filing of revision petition — Delay should be condoned without any formal application when the facts constituting sufficient cause fully proved on the record. Sanaullah Raja v. Muhammad Shafi and 2 others 1997 SCR 149 (E)
  8. Limitation — Suit of pre-emption — Contention that the limitation would start from the date when possession was taken — Held: Not tenable because no averment was made in the plaint that the possession was handed over sometime after the execution of the sale deed. Zameer v. Baseer Ahmad and 9 others 1997 SCR 187 (A)
  9. Delay — Leave to appeal admittedly time-barred by 136 days — It is claimed that the counsel delayed intimation about announcement of judgment and that petition is within time from the date of knowledge — Held: knowledge of the counsel is the knowledge of the client and thus limitation starts running from the date of announcement of judgment if it is announced in his presence. Chairman AJK Council v. Abdul Latif and 5 others 1997 SCR 264 (A)
  10. Delay of each day has to be explained by a party seeking the condonation of delay. Chairman AJK Council v. Abdul Latif and 5 others 1997 SCR 264 (B)
  11. Supreme Court may condone delay to avoid anamoly but no such situation exists in this case. Chairman AJK Council v. Abdul Latif and 5 others 1997 SCR 264 (D)
  12. Delay in filing appeal — Condonation of delay — Knowledge of the counsel is knowledge of the client and thus limitation starts running from the date of announcement of judgment if it is announced in presence of the counsel. AJK Council v. Abdur Rashid & others 1998 SCR 44 (A)
  13. Service matter — Result of proceedings was not conveyed to the party — Effect of — Application for getting copy of the judgment was moved on 12.7.1997 and the same was delivered on 22.7.1997 — Appeal was filed on 24.7.1997 — Held: Appeal filed within time. Aftab Ahmad v. Khurshid Hussain & 3 others 1998 SCR 89 (A)
  14. Representation — Decision in — At the time of decision the authority was conscious of the proceedings being out of time — Deciding the controversy on merits it impliedly condoned the delay — Case remanded. Aftab Ahmad v. Khurshid Hussain & 3 others 1998 SCR 89 (C)
  15. Cross version — Delay in filing F.I.R. is not fatal like a rule of limitation as is the case in civil matters. Nazir Ahmad Khan & 3 others v. State 1998 SCR 95 (C)
  16. Once the delay is condoned by an authority below that cannot be reopened or disturbed by this Court. M. Sharif Khan and another v. Zahir Hussain Shah & another 1998 SCR 106 (A)
  17. Petition is barred by about 25 days — Counsel for appellant No.2 was present in the High Court when the admission order was passed — There was no explanation as to why he did not move the Supreme Court within time — Appeal to his extent cannot proceed — However, explanation has been furnished about appellant No.1 — It was not impleaded as a respondent in the High Court — Petition for leave to appeal was filed upon having the knowledge of the order — Chief Executive and Rector of the University were present through their   counsel — Their knowledge is the knowledge of the University — Held: The appeal is time bared in so far as it relates to the admission order and it is dismissed to that extent. Al-Khair University of AJK and another v. Al.Khair Trust (Pakistan) & 5 others 1998 SCR 186 (A)
  18. Knowledge of counsel is knowledge of the client — Failure of counsel to inform his client about decision of case does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Muhammad Yousaf Shah v. Secretary Home and another 1999 SCR 297 (A)
  19. In cases of condonation, delay of every day has been explained. Ajaib Hussain and another v. Zareen Akhar and 11 others 2000 SCR 70 (E)
  20. Application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased time barred — Held: Contention that delay occurred due to non-availability of the antecedents of the legal representatives of Mst. Fazal Begum deceased not acceptable — Delay not condoned. Muhammad Ashraf and 6 others v. Alam Din and 6 others 2001 SCR 441 (A)
  21. Each and every day of delay has to be explained by the party who files a petition for leave to appeal beyond the period of limitation. Vice Chancellor v. Fazal Hussain Rabbani 2001 SCR 541 (B)
  22. Delay of each day has to be explained by the applicant seeking the condonation. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi v. Director/Deputy Director Anti-corruption & 4 others 2001 SCR 272 (G)
  23. Delay — Condonation of delay — Question of limitation neither raised before Custodian nor before the High Court — Custodian impliedly condoned the delay. Muhammad Din & another v. Custodian of Evacuee Property & another 2002 SCR 93 (F)
  24. The appeal before the High Court was time-barred and appellant failed to explain the delay of each and every day as the application filed for condonation of delay is silent — There was no sufficient cause for acceptance of application filed for condonation of delay. Govt. of Pakistan & another v. Parveen and 2 others 2003 SCR 313 (A)
  25. Without the condonation of delay the errors of law committed by any party cannot be excused particularly where without sufficient cause the condonation of delay is sough — The delay of each and every day is to be explained — Held: The appeal is not properly constituted is dismissed with costs. Muhammad Hanif  v. Muhammad  Bashir & another 2003 SCR 489 (C)
  26. Under order XLI rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. — The appellant in second appeal was not legally required to append the decree-sheet of the trial Court with memo of appeal — Delay in filing appeal not condoned — Held: The High Court rightly dismissed the appeal. Muhammad Alam v. Muhammad Nazir Ahmed & another 2005 SCR 231 (A)
  27. Delay — Condonation of — Delay can be condoned only if some sufficient cause is furnished — Otherwise law expects due diligence, care and consciousness from the litigating public. Muhammad Habib Khan v. Nasiri Khatoon & 11 others 2006 SCR 22 (B)
  28. Prosecution case is pending completion in trial Court for the last about three years — Which delay is in fact inordinate and particularly offending of procedure provided for trial of criminal cases — Observed that trial Court shall conclude proceedings within reasonable time — So that appellants are not kept behind the bar for indefinite period. Arshad Mahmood & another v. The State & another 2010 SCR 75 (I)
  29. Application for condonation of delay filed within time — The trial Court did not reject the application on the date of its presentation — Held: — If the trial Court was of the opinion that the reason advanced in the application for condonation of delay is not sufficient, an order must has been passed on its presentation. In that case the plaintiff-respondent could have managed to deposit the required amount on the date fixed for. The application for permission to deposit the amount remained unattended by the trial Court. In the special circumstances and keeping in view the vigilant conduct of the plaintiff-respondent, it is opined that the reason advanced by the plaintiff-respondent was sufficient in the given circumstances. Muhammad Shabbir Khan v. Abdul Qayyum Khan 2010 SCR 528 (B)
  30. —condonation of— according to the settled principle of law it is duty of a party to explain satisfactorily the delay of each and every day. Even one day delay not condoned by this Court. Muhammad Shafi & 2 others v. Akbar Ali & others 2017 SCR 678 (B)  1992 SCR 338, 1997 SCR 264 & 2002 SCR 302 ref.
  31. —Condonation of— This Court in a number of cases has held that even the delay of one day in filing appeal or petition is fatal and makes the petition or appeal, as the case may be, not maintainable Muhammad Ashraf  Khan v. Muhammad Akram Khan & others 2017 SCR 863 (B)  Muhammad Shafi & others vs. Akbar Ali & others (Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2015 decided on 21.03.2017) rel.          
  32.  —condonation of—it is the duty of the party to explain delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of the Court— Tabasam Ashraf v. Azad Jammu & Kashmir Govt. & 4 others 2020 SCR 127 (E)
  33. — According to the settled principle of law, the delay of each and every day has to be explained satisfactorily. Raja Baland Pervaiz & 27 others Versus Azad Govt. & 3 others 2021 SCR 116 (A)
  34. —Delay of each and every day has to be explained for lodging appeal after the prescribed period of limitation. Alhaj Sardar Manzoor Hussain Khan Versus Mst. Laila Ashiq & 3 others 2021 SCR 257 (B)  1997 SCR 264 rel.
  35. —Writ—delay of each and every day is to be explained by the party who has been negligent enough to file the writ after such a huge delay. Akhlaq Mehmood Versus Azad Government & 10 others 2021 SCR 265 (B) 2002 SCR 150 & 2016 SCR 655 ref.
  36. —Condonation of— a party seeking the condonation of delay has to satisfactorily explain the delay of each and every day. Deeba Begum Alias Wahiba versus Safia Iqbal & 8 others  2021 SCR 302 (A) 2016 SCR 90 & PLJ 2001 SC (AJ&K) 368 ref.
  37. —Condonation of— a party seeking condonation of delay has to satisfactorily explain the delay of each and every day—the explanation put forth must be reasonable and cogent. Arshad Mehmood & 23 others Versus Chief Administrator Auqaf & 19 others 2021 SCR 364 (B)  2000 SCR 614 ref.
  38. —Condonation of —it is duty of a party to explain the delay of each and every day satisfactorily Naik Muhammad Khan Versus Board of Revenue & 14 others 2021 SCR 408 (A) 2002 SCR 302, 2008 SCR 275 & 2017 SCR 678 rel.
  39. Delay of each and every day has to be explained by the party          for lodging appeal after prescribed period of limitation.— Imtiaz Akhtar alias Muhammad Taj Versus Muhammad Aslam & 31 others 2021 SCR 454 (B) 1997 SCR 264 rel.
  40. —delay of each and every day has to be explained by a party seeking condonation. Muhammad Shezad Versus Maila Kausar  2021 SCR 702 (A)
  41. Delay— —See Naseem Iqbal    AJ&K Govt. & others 145 (B)
  42. —Condonation of—See Muhammad Rasheed & others               v. Custodian Evacuee Property & others  2022 SCR 247 (C)  
  43. —It is the duty of the party to explain delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of the Court. Ali Akbar v. Qasim Din & others 2022 SCR 513 (A)
  44. —Condonation of— the appellant despite participating in the proceedings, having full knowledge of the direction of Court, slept over his right being negligent—held: the discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or fancifully by taking away the valuable rights already accrued to a party by lapse of time. Mehboob Ahmed v. Hamida Bibi & others 2022 SCR 749 (A)
  45. — It is the settled principle of law that the delay of each and every day has to be explained. Muhammad Qadeer v. Minister of Revenue Deptt. & others 2022 SCR 1426 (B) 2020 SCR 127 rel.
  46. — Condonation of — it is settled principle of law that the party seeking condonation of delay has to satisfactorily explain delay of each and every day. Muhammad Rasheed Khan & 10 others vs Custodian Evacuee Property 05 others 2024 SCR 187 (B/1)
error: Content is protected !!