Thirty-day ceiling: No relaxation in deadline for filing appeals: SC
Says filing of a wrong appeal does not constitute a sufficient reason for condoning the delay
PHOTO: anheimblog
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court declared on Tuesday that courts were not empowered to act upon ‘whims and caprice’; instead the courts’ discretions were “circumscribed by law, recognised norms of justice, fairplay, equity, logic, rationality and reasonableness”.
The apex court also ruled that the filing of an appeal before a wrong forum on a counsel’s wrong advice did not constitute a sufficient reason for condoning the delay because “if this rule is accepted, then centuries-tested rule that ignorance of law is no excuse, would stand violated”.
The five-judge larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali on Tuesday issued a judgment on whether the pendency of appeal before a wrong forum i.e., one having no jurisdiction on account of wrong advice of the counsel, constitutes a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
SC’s senior-most judge Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, the author of the 69-page judgment, observed that poor advice by a counsel may cause hardship to a litigant and compromise his ability to seek redress in law.
“But hardship caused to a person on account of poor advice of a counsel does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay per se.”
The judgment urges all courts to keep these considerations in mind when deciding whether or not “delay caused by virtue of alleged wrong advice by counsel should be condoned”.
It further states that lawyers are required to be aware about the basics of law in terms of where to file an action as courts are deeply conscious of the fact that “at times certain counsels may unwittingly mislead litigants”.
“The rule is neither meant to provide a premium to the negligent litigant who finds himself on the wrong side of limitation for unfounded reasons and nor to impair the rights of the other side.”
The judgment said that the appellant has to clearly specify reasons which led him to commit the mistake and such application must also be supported by an affidavit.
The court further observed that even no condonation of delay can be availed by the court, when a litigant approaches a wrong forum and such appeal is entertained by the staff of the court or by the court or even admitted to regular hearing.
However, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan penned a dissenting note on one point of the judgment, holding that appellants going out of limitation on account of the act of the Court were entitled to extension of time and their appeals thus stand decided accordingly.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 17th, 2016.
The Supreme Court declared on Tuesday that courts were not empowered to act upon ‘whims and caprice’; instead the courts’ discretions were “circumscribed by law, recognised norms of justice, fairplay, equity, logic, rationality and reasonableness”.
The apex court also ruled that the filing of an appeal before a wrong forum on a counsel’s wrong advice did not constitute a sufficient reason for condoning the delay because “if this rule is accepted, then centuries-tested rule that ignorance of law is no excuse, would stand violated”.
The five-judge larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali on Tuesday issued a judgment on whether the pendency of appeal before a wrong forum i.e., one having no jurisdiction on account of wrong advice of the counsel, constitutes a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
SC’s senior-most judge Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, the author of the 69-page judgment, observed that poor advice by a counsel may cause hardship to a litigant and compromise his ability to seek redress in law.
“But hardship caused to a person on account of poor advice of a counsel does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay per se.”
The judgment urges all courts to keep these considerations in mind when deciding whether or not “delay caused by virtue of alleged wrong advice by counsel should be condoned”.
It further states that lawyers are required to be aware about the basics of law in terms of where to file an action as courts are deeply conscious of the fact that “at times certain counsels may unwittingly mislead litigants”.
“The rule is neither meant to provide a premium to the negligent litigant who finds himself on the wrong side of limitation for unfounded reasons and nor to impair the rights of the other side.”
The judgment said that the appellant has to clearly specify reasons which led him to commit the mistake and such application must also be supported by an affidavit.
The court further observed that even no condonation of delay can be availed by the court, when a litigant approaches a wrong forum and such appeal is entertained by the staff of the court or by the court or even admitted to regular hearing.
However, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan penned a dissenting note on one point of the judgment, holding that appellants going out of limitation on account of the act of the Court were entitled to extension of time and their appeals thus stand decided accordingly.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 17th, 2016.