The BANK OF PUNJAB vs SUPER TRUNK HOUSE S — 2022 PLD 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

The BANK OF PUNJAB VS SUPER TRUNK HOUSE S. 5---Condonation of delay---Scope---Applicant sought condonation of delay occasioned due to negligence of its counsel but when the applicant was confronted with query as to whether any action was taken against the said counsel on account of such default, the applicant conceded that no action whatsoever was taken in this regard---Applicant was obliged to explain delay of each and every day---Incumbent upon the applicant to establish sufficient cause for the same---Application of condonation of delay being devoid of merits was dismissed. Justice, equity and good conscience do not override the law of limitation---Object of law of limitation is to prevent stale demands and it ought to be construed strictly---Hurdles of limitation cannot be crossed under the guise of any hardships or imagined inherent discretionary jurisdiction of the Court---Ignorance, negligence, mistake or hardship do not save limitation, nor does poverty of the parties. Question of limitation cannot be termed as mere technicality---Such has paramount importance, as with the afflux of time certain rights do accrue in favour of the adversary, which cannot be taken away in a slipshod manner---Object of framing the law for the purpose of regulating the limitation was to push the parties to file their respective claims within stipulated period---Time period provided for filing the proceedings in terms of suit, appeal, review or revision petition cannot be lightly ignored or brushed aside---Question of limitation is as important as jurisdiction of the Court. Every litigant is expected to prosecute his cause with all diligence and hilt and if somebody opts to thwart the process of law, he is liable to face the penal consequences provided therein---Courts cannot sit as silent spectators in such circumstances and shut their eyes on the flagrant violation of law. Void order---Scope---Hurdle of limitation cannot be softened merely on the ground that order under challenge in appeal is illegal or unlawful order---Even if order under challenge is void the person challenging such order has to explain the delay in filing the proceedings.

The BANK OF PUNJAB vs SUPER TRUNK HOUSE S — 2022 PLD 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD