ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that the question of limitation cannot be taken casually or unconscientiously, and carelessness, intentional or obvious sluggishness, or dearth of bonafide are no reasons for condonation of delay.
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard an appeal of the Province of Sindh (appellant) against the Sindh High Court (SHC) verdict.
Through its land acquisition officer, the Province of Sindh challenged the judgment of the Referee Court/ Additional District Judge, Sukkur, in Land Acquisition Reference/ Suit, whereby the Reference was allowed in favour of the private respondents and the quantum of compensation was enhanced, before the Sindh High Court, which upheld the District Judge verdict. The Province of Sindh then filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court.
The SC judgment noted that Civil Appeal was barred by 30 days and the condonation application attached with the appeal does not specify any ground for indulgence of this Court (SC), except few unconvincing and generic grounds; for instance, after passing the impugned judgment, the appellant’s representative approached the Office of Additional Advocate General (AAG), Sindh, at Sukkur, for obtaining certified copies of the impugned judgment and memo of appeal.
The judgment, authored by Justice Mazhar, said if any person or party wants to file an appeal in the higher court, they should be vigilant and diligent in pursuing their available remedy within the stipulated time frame. If the department was negligent or reckless and approached the AAG Office with delay, then no premium of such delay can be accorded with the benefit of condonation in the lapse of time.
Justice Mazhar wrote that the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Police Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan Region versus Riaz Hussain Bukhari (2024 SCMR 1021 = 2023 SCP 323), held that while considering the grounds for condonation of delay, whether rational or irrational, no extraordinary clemency or compassion and/ or preferential treatment may be accorded to the government department, autonomous bodies, or private sector/ organizations; rather, their cases should be dealt with uniformly and in the same manner as cases of ordinary litigants and citizens.
The judgment noted that the appeals are instituted by the federal and provincial governments and autonomous bodies after the lapse of the period of limitation postulated by the law, and the plea taken for condoning the delay is invariably and inevitably that the time was spent in fulfilling inter-departmental procedures and seeking final instructions from the competent authority.
It said seemingly applications for condonation of delay are being filed as a routine matter, while adopting a callous approach, which fails to recognize that the delay cannot be condoned without the presence of sufficient cause or explaining the delay of every day.
“The mechanical and unpersuasive justification of administrative delays has almost become a trend which is consistently pleaded for condonation of delay through stereotypical and generalized applications, which, in our point of view, cannot be considered ‘sufficient cause’ or a reasonable ground in every case.
“At times, this cavalier attitude and approach smears and smacks malafide and leads to the belief that the appeal is intentionally being presented belatedly only as a formality to provide an undue advantage to the other side, rather than due to any genuine intent to challenge the judgment or order,” the judgment added.
Justice Mazhar wrote that the astuteness of the law of limitation does not confer a right, but ensues incapacitation after the lapse of the period allowed for enforcing some existing legal rights, and it foresees the culmination of claims which have decayed by the efflux of time.
He stated that it is the inherent duty of the Court to delve into the question of limitation, regardless of whether it is raised or not.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.