Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafi-ur-Rehman Title: GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 185 and 186 of 1978 W.P.
No.337iR-72 and W.P. No.673/66 Petitions No.9/77 and 8/77 Date of Judgment:1981-08-08 Reported As: 1986 SCMR 1554 Result: petitions dismissed Judgment ORDER ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This order will dispose of C.P. No.185 of 1978 and C . P. No. 186 of 1978. 2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioners filed two Writ Petitions (i.e. No.377/72 and 673/66), which, were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 12-11- 1976. They then filed two Review Petitions (Nos.9 and 8 of 1977, respectively), which were barred by 21 days. Since no plausible explanation for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petitions was put forward, the same were dismissed on 12-11-1976. The petitioners have now filed the present Petitions for Leave to Appeal against the orders dismissing the Writ Petitions as well as those dismissing their Review Petitions. 3. The Petitions are barred by as many as 449 days, as against the orders dismissing the writ petitions. The learned counsel has not been able to furnish any good ground for condonation of the delay. He has only submitted that the Petitions for Leave to Appeal are within time as far as the orders dismissing the Review Petitions are concerned. But as already mentioned, the Review Applications were time-barred and were dismissed as such. The learned counsel explained that the application for review were filed after the expiry of limitation, because the counsel for the petitioners was under the erroneous impression that the period for filing an application for review was 90 days. As observed earlier, the learned Judge in Chamber, was not impressed by the explanation for the delay in filing the Review applications, and refused to condone the delay and distressed the application as time-barred. We find -no defect in this order and feel that the learned Judge in Chamber was justified in dismissing the Review applications as time-barred. 4. In this view of the matter, the two Petitions are dismissed having no merit.