The court orders the dismissal of the appeal and application for condonation of delay due to insufficient explanation and non-compliance with court orders.

Condonation of delay

The court orders the dismissal of the appeal and application for condonation of delay due to insufficient explanation and non-compliance with court orders.

Main story of the case 

The case involves an appeal filed by Mst. Nishat Mummunka against Safdar Raza. It appears that a judgment and decree were passed on 04.05.2021, but the appellant filed the appeal on 13.10.2022, which was beyond the prescribed time limit. The appellant cited unavoidable circumstances as the reason for the delay. However, the court found the explanation insufficient, especially considering the failure to submit a surety bond as ordered by the trial court. Consequently, the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit was upheld, as it was deemed appropriate in light of the appellant's non-compliance.

The main point discussed

 in the judgment is regarding the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, specifically in relation to the Limitation Act. The judgment emphasizes that the Limitation Act is not merely a technicality but operates as substantive law. It highlights the importance of time constraints and limits in maintaining a disciplined and structured judicial process. Additionally, it mentions that failure to adhere to the prescribed time period for pursuing a cause of action can result in valuable rights accruing in favor of the opposing party. Ultimately, the judgment dismisses the appeal and application for condonation of delay, citing insufficient explanation for the delay and the dismissal of the original suit due to non-compliance with court orders.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

R.F.A.No.65083 of 2022

Mst. Nishat Mummunka

Versus

Safdar Raza

J U D G M E N T

Date of Hearing: 19.04.2024

Appellant by: 

Sardar Haider Tahir, Advocate

Respondent by: Chaudhry Zulfiqar Ismail, 

Advocate

SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.

C.M.No.2 of 2022 & Main Appeal

Through this application under section 5 

of the Limitation Act, 1908, the applicant/appellant 

seeks condonation of delay in filing the captioned 

appeal on the ground that due to unavoidable 

circumstances, the appeal could not filed within time; 

that the delay is not deliberate and intentional; 

therefore, by allowing the application in hand, the 

delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.

2.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the 

respondent has opposed the application in hand and 

has prayed for dismissal of the same as well as appeal 

being barred by limitation.

R.F.A.No.65083 of 2022

 2

3.

Heard.

4.

Limitation Act is not mere a technicality 

rather the same operates as substantive law and if no 

time constraints and limits are prescribed for pursuing 

a cause of action and for seeking reliefs/remedies 

relating to such cause of action, and a person is 

allowed to sue for the redressal of his grievance within 

an infinite and unlimited time period, it shall adversely 

affect the disciplined and structured judicial process 

and mechanism of the State, which is sine qua non for 

any State to perform its functions within the 

parameters of the Constitution and the rule of law, as 

has been elaborated the discussed in judgment reported 

as Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad 

and others (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 212). Further 

in judgment reported as United Bank Limited and 

others v. Noor-Un-Nisa and others (2015 SCMR 380), 

the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:-

‘Under section 3 of the Limitation Act, 

1908, it is the bounden duty of every 

Court of law to take notice of the question 

of limitation even if not raised in defence 

by the other contesting party(s).’

Earlier to the above the Supreme Court of Pakistan 

dealt with the same proposition in Lahore 

Development Authority v. Mst. Sharifan Bibi and

R.F.A.No.65083 of 2022

 3

another (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 705) and Sardar 

Anwar Ali Khan and 10 others v. Sardar Baqir Ali 

through Legal Heirs and 4 others (1992 SCMR 2435).

In this backdrop it is observed that the 

Limitation Act is a substantive law and after lapse of 

prescribed period provided under law for challenging 

any order passed against a person and in favour of 

other valuable right accrues in favour of the opposite 

party in whose favour an order or judgment is passed 

and the party aggrieved has to explain delay of each 

and every day showing sufficient cause.

5.

In the instant case, the appeal preferred by 

the appellant is barred by limitation because the 

judgment and decree was passed on 04.05.2021 

whereas the appellant has agitated the same on 

13.10.2022, upon which objection was raised and the 

same was resubmitted on 19.10.2022 and no plausible 

explanation was submitted rather only ground of 

unavoidable circumstances has been taken. In a

judgment reported as Imtiaz Ali Atta Muhammad and 

another (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 461), it was held

by Supreme Court of Pakistan that, ‘the appeal having 

been filed after one day of the period of limitation had 

created valuable right in favour of respondents.

R.F.A.No.65083 of 2022

 4

6.

Moreover, the appellant could not furnish 

the surety bond as ordered by the learned trial Court at 

the time of accepting the application for leave to 

appear and defend the suit on 19.03.2022, therefore, 

vide order dated 09.05.2022, the application for leave 

to appear and defend was dismissed due to nonsubmission of surety bond and ultimately vide order 

dated 14.09.2022, while rectifying the order dated 

09.05.2022, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial 

Court. It is observed that as the order for accepting the 

application of the appellant for leave to appear and 

defend the suit was recalled, the ultimate result would 

be revival of the ante status i.e. ex parte judgment and 

decree dated 04.05.2021. Therefore, the learned trial 

Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 

14.09.2022, which does not need any interference by 

this Court at this stage.

7.

In view of the above, the application as 

well as captioned appeal having no force and 

substance stands dismissed. No order as to the costs.

(Shahid Bilal Hassan)

Judge

Approved for reporting 

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.

Some more case laws on condonation of delay 

Certainly! Here are a few cases from Pakistan related to condonation of delay and the Limitation Act:

1. **Muhammad Khalid vs. Muhammad Saeed and Others (2014 CLC 251):** In this case, the Lahore High Court emphasized that the power to condone delay under the Limitation Act should be exercised judiciously and in exceptional circumstances. The court held that the mere filing of an application for condonation of delay does not automatically entitle the applicant to the condonation of delay.

2. **Zulfiqar Ali vs. Punjab Land Development Company (PLD 2016 Lahore 13):** The Lahore High Court in this case reiterated the principle that the court should not mechanically condone delay but should examine the reasons for delay and the conduct of the parties. The court held that condonation of delay should not be granted if there is negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the applicant.

3. **Government of Punjab vs. Abdul Ghaffar and Others (2004 MLD 1845):** This case highlights the importance of providing sufficient cause for the delay in filing an appeal. The Lahore High Court held that mere inconvenience or financial hardship is not sufficient justification for condonation of delay. The applicant must demonstrate genuine reasons beyond their control.

These cases illustrate how Pakistani courts interpret and apply the provisions of the Limitation Act in the context of condonation of delay in legal proceedings.