Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mian GHULAM RASOOL BODLA VS Respondent: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR and another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Irshad Hasan Khan, Muhammad Arif Title:Mian GHULAM RASOOL BODLA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR and
another Case No.: Civil Petition No,1400-L of 1997 Writ Petition No,2198 of 1996 Date of Judgment:1998-06-30 Reported As: 1999 SCMR 1307 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 11-7- 1997 passed in Writ Petition No,2198 of 1996 by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur. 2. The petition is admittedly barred by 60 days. Delay is sought to be condoned on the following grounds:-- "4. That unfortunately the petitioner's counsel Raja Suhail never informed the petitioner regarding the dismissal of his writ petition on 11-7-1997. The petitioner also could not contact his counsel because of lack of facility of telephone with the petitioner's counsel. Since he was confined to bed he could not personally visit Bahawalpur and contact his counsel with the result that the petitioner could not gain knowledge regarding the disposal of his appeal. 5. That it was only on 7-10-1997 that the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of his appeal when he visited Bahawalpur and contacted his counsel. The petitioner immediately applied for the copy of the order without any loss of time on 9-10-1997 which was delivered to him on 10-10-1997. 6. That thereafter the petitioner had to arrange for the funds for engaging a counsel which he could only manage by the end of October, 1997. ' When funds were arranged the petitioner engaged his counsel and filed the petition in this Honourable Court." 3. We are afraid the opposite party cannot be penalized for the alleged negligence of the petitioner's counsel in the High Court. Likewise, the plea raised by the petitioner that he could not contact his counsel because of lack of facility of telephone with the petitioner's counsel is hardly a
---
## Page 2
ground for condonation of delay. It was the duty of the petitioner to pursue his case diligently and he alone is responsible for the negligence of his counsel. As to the contention that he was confined to bed, therefore, he could not personally proceed to Bahawalpur and contact his counsel, suffice it to say that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his bald statement in the absence of any proof on record. As to the plea that the petitioner had to arrange for the funds for engaging a counsel, suffice it to say that paucity of funds does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay. 4. The petition is hopelessly barred by time. No valid ground exists for condonation. Dismissed being time-barred.