Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 CLC 1135
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Year of Decision: 2023
Decision Date: 2023-10-06
Parties: Khalil Ahmed through Attorney vs District Registrar for Registration and 4 others
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court on 2023-10-06, officially reported as 2024 CLC 1135. In this matter between Khalil Ahmed through Attorney and District Registrar for Registration and 4 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.
Case cited as 2024 CLC 1135
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Nadeem Akhtar, Yousuf Ali Sayeed Title:Khalil Ahmed through Attorney vs District Registrar for Registration and 4
others Case No.: High Court Appeal No.178 of 2021 Date of Judgment:2023-10-06 Reported As: 2024 CLC 1135 Result: Appeal dismissed Judgment
ORDER Through the listed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the appellant has prayed that the delay of four (04) days in filing the instant appeal be condoned. The application is supported by the affidavit of the appellant's attorney Zafar Riazuddin Bari. The sole ground on which the delay is sought to be condoned is that due to some symptoms, the attorney had been advised by his doctor to observe quarantine during the Covid-19 pandemic ; and, his counsel had advised him that he will not be permitted to enter the premises of this Court due to such symptoms. In support of his contention, the attorney has filed a medical certificate dated 28.08.2001 purportedly issued to him. It is significant to note that the name of the attorney is not mentioned in the medical certificate filed and relied upon by him. The period/dates during which the attorney was purportedly under quarantine have not been disclosed by him. Moreover, the application and its supporting affidavit are silent as to why the appellant was unable to present the appeal within time if his attorney was observing quarantine. The appellant has also not filed his own affidavit explaining his disability for filing the appeal within time. Therefore, the burden to explain the delay of each and every day has not been discharged by the appellant and or his attorney. In the above circumstances, the delay cannot be condoned in view of Imtiaz Ali v. Atta Muhammad and another PLD 2008 SC 462, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the appeal, having been filed after one day of the prescribed period of limitation, had created valuable right in favour of the respondents, and no sufficient cause was found for filing the appeal
---
## Page 2
beyond the period of limitation. Even the delay of only one day was not condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited case. Accordingly, the listed application is dismissed and resultantly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to Costs.