Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Peshawar High Court on 2023-10-13, officially reported as 2024 MLD 1399. In this matter between Main Qaiser Shah and M/s Khyber Grace Private (Ltd) and others, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

Court Name: Peshawar High Court Judge(s): Syed Muhammad Attique Shah Title: Main Qaiser Shah vs M/s Khyber Grace Private (Ltd) and others Case No.: CM (Restoration) No. 321-P/2023 with CM No. 1299-P/2023 in CR 353-P/2022 Date of Judgment:2023-10-13 Reported As: 2023 PHC 450, 2024 MLD 1399 Result: Application Dismissed

Judgment ORDER S. M. ATTIQUE SHAH, J.- Through instant CM, applicants seek restoration of CR No.353-P/2022, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.06.2023, accompanied with an application for condonation of delay mainly on the score that on the crucial date he took her wife to CMH Nowshera for medical checkup being ill. 2. Heard. Undoubtedly, instant restoration application filed by the applicants is time barred by sixty days and their application for condonation of delay also did not disclose any cogent, convincing and; reasonable cause to condone such delay. It is well settled law that delay in filing proceedings could not be condoned lightly unless it was shown that there were sufficient cogent and well convincing delay or the order is coram non judice or void for any strong and; plausible reasons. 1989 SCMR 1621 Province of Punjab Vs. Muhammad Tayya b and others and; 2000 SCMR 367 Muhammad Hussain and others Vs. Muhammad and others. 3. Record reflects that despite proper service, none was present on behalf of the applicants on the date fixed to represent them, notwithstanding that they were representing by two learned Advocates. Assuming for the sake of arguments that if one of the learned counsel of the applicants was not available due to his personal reasons, then the other learned counsel should have appeared before the court or for that matter, their attorney was duty bound to represent them on the date fixed. The grounds cited in the application qua restoration of the petition and; condonation of delay are certainly neither plausible, convincing and; reasonable nor sufficient in the attending circumstances of the case, therefore, cannot be considered for restoration of the same. Indeed, existence of "Sufficient Cause" is sine qua non for condonation of delay. Certainly, law favours the vigilant and; not the indolent. It is settled principle of law that the party

---

## Page 2

approaching court of competent jurisdiction for redresssal of grievance beyond specified period of limitation is bound to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of respective forum because a valuable right accrues to the other side, which is indeed not the case here. 2001 SCMR 1822 An Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others and; PLD 2011 Supreme Court 174 Qaisar Mushtaq Ahmad Vs. Controller of Examinations and others. 4. In view of above, instant application for condonation of delay being unfounded is dismissed with the result that the restoration application also stands dismissed being barred by time in limine.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Peshawar High Court
• Browse Pakistani court decisions from the year 2023
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant