Lahore Development Authority vs Muhammad Asif S — 2026 YLR 1112 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.

Lahore Development Authority VS Muhammad Asif S.5 & First Schedule, art. 162-a---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Filing of revision petition, delay in---Condonation of delay---Sufficient cause---Plea taken by the petitioners (Lahore Development authority /LDa) in application for condonation of delay was that delay was caused because of unintentional mistake of the clerk of LDa counsel who misplaced the file in the office and they were under false impression that a civil revision had been filed in time---Validity---The present revision petition was barred by 255 days---In case of condonation, the applicant has to explain each and every day's delay, but in the case in hand, no such explanation had been offered by the petitioners---The legislature in its wisdom has fixed the period of limitations for a particular action---Besides, invoking remedy by some aggrieved person beyond the period of limitation prescribed for redressal of grievance, creates a valuable right in favour of the opposite party, therefore, in such case, delay of each day has to be explained by the defaulting party to the satisfaction of the court, which could not be condoned lightly or as of routine, as such arbitrary exercise of discretion would cause serious prejudice to the opposite party----Limitation is not a mere technicality and where the limitation period has expired, a right accrues in favour of the other side which cannot be brushed aside---The law of limitation is a rule of procedure, a branch of adjective law, which controls and regulates the process of litigation and time lines to prosecute a cause, failing which the matter must be closed---The litigant must take legal recourse with due diligence, as the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights---Law of limitation cannot be considered a mere formality, rather is required to be dealt with being mandatory in nature---Present civil revision ought to have been filed within 90 days as per art.162-a of the Limitation act, 1908---If objections raised by the office (of Court) were not removed during the period allowed by the office and meanwhile the limitation period expired, the appeal/petition would become barred by time---Law of limitation has a significant role in the administration of justice and an aggrieved person has to approach the competent forum within the period prescribed in the law and against the adverse order a party could not be allowed to sleep over it for an indefinite period and challenge it at the time of its own choosing rather the aggrieved party is placed under legal obligation to avail its legal remedy against the adverse decision/order/ decree within the prescribed period of limitation before the proper forum, whereas after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, a tangible right stood accrued in favour of the opposite party and the said right cannot be frustrated merely on whimsical and unsubstantiated grounds---The reason assigned by the appellant for condonation of delay in no way could be termed as sufficient cause---Mere bald assertions were not sufficient to soften the implication of limitation in case of stale claims---Thus, no case for condonation of delay was made out in favour of the applicant/petitioners---application for condonation of delay was dismissed---Consequently, the main Civil revision, being barred by time, was also dismissed.

Lahore Development Authority vs Muhammad Asif S — 2026 YLR 1112 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR