IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Civil Rev. Appln. S-62 of 2020 Nisar Ahmed Abbasi & others
vs. Muhammad Ali Abbasi & Others.
For the Applicant : Mr. Abdul Karim Surahio
Advocate
Mr. Nisar Ahmed Abbasi
Applicant
Date of hearing : 31.01.2022
Date of announcement : 31.01.2022
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. 1. Deferred 2. Granted, subject to all just exceptions. 4,3&5. This civil revision application impugns the judgment dated 11.02.2020, however, has been filed beyond the 90 days' limitation period, hence, this application for condonation of delay.
2. While the judgment is dated 11.02.2020, it is apparent that the certified copies thereof was delivered to the applicant on 14.02.2020. However, the present revision was not preferred until 30.06.2020.
3. The affidavit accompanying the present application is devoid of any single ground, however, the memorandum of application itself states that the revision application was not filed earlier due to Covid-19, lockdown and the plaintiff being aged. This ground appears unconvincing as the pandemic as well as any issue of age subsisted even on the date when the present revision was filed. In addition to the foregoing, learned counsel argued that the applicant was required to obtain certified copies to place on record and that exercise consumed additional time. This argument is belied by the admitted fact that the certified copy was received by the applicant within three days of the rendering of the impugned order.
4. It is the considered opinion of the Court that the prescriptions of limitation are not mere technicalities and disregard thereof would render entire law of limitation redundant[1]. It has been maintained by the Superior Courts consistently that it is incumbent upon the Courts to first determine whether the proceedings filed there before were within time and the Courts are mandated to conduct such an exercise regardless of whether or not an objection has been taken in such regard[2]. It has been maintained by the honorable Supreme Court[3] that each day of delay had to be explained in an application seeking condonation of delay and that in the absence of such an explanation the said application was liable to be dismissed. In the present facts and circumstances the application seeking condonation of delay was devoid of any cogent explanation whatsoever.
5. In view of the foregoing, no case has been made out for condoning the delay and this application is hereby dismissed. As consequence thereto civil revision application and accompanying application are dismissed in limine.
JUDGE