| Case ID |
39ac96af-a610-4d16-9004-8926ab0227d3 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 55 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 19, 1977 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition filed by Haji Malik Aman due to the lapse of the statutory limitation period. The petitioner had sought condonation of delay, arguing that the limitation period did not commence during the court's prolonged vacation. However, the court held that according to Order II, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules and Orders, petitions filed during the court's vacation are subject to the same limitation periods as when the court is in session, excluding Saturdays. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a bona fide excuse for the delay, as there was no ambiguity in the court's practice regarding the commencement of the limitation period. The court referenced the precedent set in Mushtaq Ahmed v. Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab, reinforcing the stance that lack of clarity in court procedures does not warrant condonation of delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on the grounds of limitation, affirming the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in legal proceedings. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 55 P of 1975, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on November 19, 1977, the petitioner, Haji Malik Aman, sought special leave to appeal against the decision rendered by the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Peshawar and three others. Represented by esteemed advocates Syed Muhammad Shahudul Haque and Khawaja Wali Muhammad, the petitioner contested the delay in filing the petition, arguing that the statutory limitation period did not commence during the court's extended vacation period. The core issue revolved around the condonation of delay, a critical aspect in legal proceedings where timely filings are paramount.
The case was presided over by Justices Dorab Patel and Nasim Hassan Shah, who meticulously examined the arguments presented. The petitioner contended that the long vacation period should equate to a suspension of the limitation period, thereby justifying the delay in filing. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Order II, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules and Orders, clarified that petitions received during the court's vacation are treated as if they were filed on regular working days, excluding Saturdays. This rule underscores the importance of adherence to procedural timelines, irrespective of the court's recess periods.
The counsel for the respondents, Karimullah Durrani and Qasim Imam, supported the argument that there was no ambiguity in the procedural rules that could be construed to support the petitioner's claim. The court further emphasized that the petitioner did not present a bona fide excuse that would merit the condonation of delay. The reference to the precedent set in Mushtaq Ahmed v. Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab (1970 SCMR26), reinforced the court's stance that procedural clarity negates the possibility of leniency in adhering to statutory timelines.
The Supreme Court's decision underscored the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the sanctity of legal procedures and the importance of timely filings in upholding justice. By dismissing the petition on the grounds of limitation, the court sent a clear message about the non-negotiable nature of statutory deadlines in legal processes. This case serves as a pivotal reference for future legal practitioners and litigants, highlighting the necessity of understanding and complying with procedural requirements to ensure the efficacy of legal actions.
Moreover, the case highlights the roles of various legal professionals, including advocates and counsel, in navigating complex legal frameworks to present compelling arguments. The meticulous analysis by the justices reflects the judicial diligence in interpreting and applying legal provisions to ensure fairness and justice. The decision also underscores the interplay between statutory laws and judicial interpretations, showcasing how courts balance procedural rules with equitable considerations.
In the broader context of Pakistani jurisprudence, this case emphasizes the judiciary's role in reinforcing legal norms and procedural integrity. It serves as a guiding precedent for cases involving delays and the condonation thereof, providing clarity on how courts approach such issues. The involvement of prominent legal figures and the reference to established legal principles further enrich the case's significance in the legal landscape.
For legal scholars and practitioners, the case offers insights into the application of Supreme Court Rules and Orders, particularly regarding the commencement of limitation periods during court vacations. It also illustrates the judicial approach to assessing excuses for delays, focusing on the genuineness and substantiation of such claims. The dismissal based on limitation grounds reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is as crucial as the substantive merits of a case.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Pakistan's decision in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 55 P of 1975 reaffirms the paramount importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods. It serves as a significant legal precedent, guiding future litigants and legal professionals in understanding the ramifications of procedural delays and the stringent criteria for condonation. The case encapsulates the judiciary's unwavering commitment to procedural integrity, fairness, and the rule of law, thereby contributing to the robust framework of Pakistan's legal system. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Peshawar
|
| Judges |
Dorab Patel,
Nasim Hassan Shah
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Muhammad Shahudul Haque,
Khawaja Wali Muhammad,
Karimullah Durrani,
Qasim Imam
|
| Petitioners |
Haji Malik Aman
|
| Respondents |
3 others,
Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Peshawar
|
| Citations |
1978 SLD 143,
1978 SCMR 166
|
| Other Citations |
Mushtaq Ahmed v. Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab 1970 SCMR26ref.
|
| Laws Involved |
Supreme Court Rules and Order, 1956
|
| Sections |
II, r. 3
|