Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1939 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Sikandar Ali vs Waris Ali S — 2025 MLD 1939 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation: 2025 MLD 1939 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court: Sindh High Court
Year: 2025
Reporter: MLD
Parties: Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1939 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Sikandar Ali vs Waris Ali S
Subject matter: Criminal
Provisions referred to: S. 5---L; S. 5; Limitation Act

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

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1939 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Sikandar Ali VS Waris Ali S. 5---Limitation--- Condonation of delay---Sufficient cause--- Scope ---Delay of each day in approaching the court for filing a lis or an appeal etc. against the order etc. has to be explained --- In the present case, the appellants' attorney has miserably failed to account for the delay of each day in filing the appeal--- Appellants' failure in contacting their advocate or pursuing the matter posits indolence and negligence on their part for which the opposing party cannot be penalized nor certain rights created in their favour thus taken away---Law of limitation has to be construed in strict sense because due to negligence and indolence of one party in pursuing the matter in the court, the valuable rights are accrued in favour of the other party which cannot be done away with on flimsy and unsubstantiated grounds---Delay in filing appeal etc. against the order etc. cannot be condoned without being satisfied about validity and sufficiency of the grounds raised for condonation of such delay---In the present case, the vague and generalized statement has been given by the attorney in his affidavit regarding gaining knowledge of the dismissal of the suit---Appellants who have purportedly executed power of attorney in favour of their attorney have not come forward to file affidavits confirming the story narrated by their attorney---There is nothing on record to show as to why for a long time the appellants failed to pursue the case and did not produce evidence despite so many chances given by the Single Judge of this /High Court--- Thus, the appeal was hopelessly time barred---High Court dismissed application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 --- Appeal, being time barred, was dismissed accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD

2025 MLD 1208 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHCitation Name: 2025 MLD 1208 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Anwer Majid VS Emirates Bank International PJSC (formerly Union Bank…
2025 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHCitation Name: 2025 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Sharif VS State Ss. 504, 506-B, 148, 149, 337-a(i) & 337-F(…
2025 MLD 1973 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREFahim Ahmed Saeed VS Mian Humayun Mahmud O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2, O.XLIII, R.1(r) --- appeal against order of Trial Court refusing to grant ad-inte…
2025 MLD 1879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESumera Rasheed VS State S. 191---Perjury (false evidence)---Administration of justice---Duty of Courts---Perjury is a vice which stigmatizes…
2025 MLD 1879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESumera Rasheed VS State S. 191---False evidence---Necessary ingredients---Section 191, P.P.C talks about making of false statement in follow…
2025 MLD 1879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESumera Rasheed VS State S. 192---Fabricating false evidence---Necessary ingredients---Requirement of S.192 P.P.C. is met only if there is an…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English