PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs MUHAMMAD ARIF AND COMPANY Vol — 2022 PLD 596 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.

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS MUHAMMAD ARIF AND COMPANY Vol. V, Ch. 1, Part A, R. 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Power to return petition for amendment---Limitation---Scope---Revision petition was filed within time, when objections were raised and file was returned by the office on the same day directing the petitioners to re-file the same within 3 days, which direction was not adhered to by the petitioners, who re-filed the same after 2 and half months, which was clearly barred by time---Petitioners' case was not that they did not have notice of the office objection or the revision petition had been retained by the office of the court to allow concession of time by concluding that the same time would not run against the petitioners---Petitioners were required to file application for seeking condonation of delay by providing a plausible reason for filing the revision petition with delay in order to proceed further with the same---However, no such application was filed by the petitioners---Civil revision, being barred by time, was dismissed. Vol. V, Ch. 1, Part A, R. 9---Power to return petition for amendment---Limitation---Scope---Where the civil revision was filed within time and office raised objection that it was incomplete and returned it on the same day for re-filing after removing objections within 3 days but the same was re-filed without plausible reason after more than 60 days of its return and in the meanwhile the limitation for filing revision had expired, High Court observed that the petitioners were required to re-file the civil revision within 3 days and the civil revision re-filed after said period without explaining any possible reason, when limitation for filing revision had also expired, was barred by time---Had the office retained the file with it, this situation would have been different and in that case the office would have been responsible for issuing notice to the petitioners. Vol. V, Ch. 1, Part A, R. 9---Power to return petition for amendment---Limitation---Scope---Where petition was initially filed within time but office returned the same by raising certain objections and giving specified timeframe to remove such objections and re-file the same but the objections were not removed within the timeframe allowed/provided by the office and in the meanwhile the limitation period for filing petition had expired, the petition would become barred by time. Person seeking condonation of delay must explain delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of the court and should also establish that delay had been caused due to reason beyond his control and mere involvement of valuable rights would not furnish a proper ground for condonation of delay in a civil matter as door of justice is closed after the prescribed period of limitation has elapsed and no plea of injustice, hardship or ignorance would be of any avail unless the delay of each day was properly explained and accounted for.

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs MUHAMMAD ARIF AND COMPANY Vol — 2022 PLD 596 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD