ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has come down hard on the federal and provincial governments for routinely filing time-barred appeals, cautioning that such delays cannot be condoned without adequate justification.
In a four-page judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, the apex court dismissed the Sindh government’s appeal against a high court order, noting that both federal and provincial governments, as well as autonomous bodies, frequently institute appeals after the statutory period of limitation has lapsed.
The judgment stated that the standard plea for condoning delays is almost always the same, noting that time was consumed in completing inter-departmental procedures and obtaining final instructions from the competent authority.
“Seemingly, applications for condonation of delay are being filed as a routine matter, while adopting a callous approach, which fails to recognise that the delay cannot be condoned without the presence of sufficient cause or explaining the delay of each and every day,” the ruling observed.
A three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Mazhar, noted that the mechanical and unconvincing justification of administrative delays has “almost become a trend” consistently pleaded in condonation applications.
The court held that such “stereotypical and generalised” excuses cannot be considered “sufficient cause” or a reasonable ground in every case.
“At times, this cavalier attitude and approach smears and smacks mala fide and leads to the belief that the appeal is intentionally being presented belatedly only as a formality in order to provide an undue advantage to the other side, rather than due to any genuine intent to challenge the judgment or order,” the judgment stated.
While acknowledging that the law favours adjudication on merits, the bench underscored that the law also protects those who act with vigilance.
“At this juncture, it is quite relevant to quote a Latin maxim ‘Leges vigilantibus non dormientibus subserviunt’ or ‘Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt’ which articulates that the law aids and assists those who are vigilant but not those who are sleeping or slumbering.”
“Delay in invoking a lawful remedy by a person or entity who was sleeping over their rights may be denied. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner,” the court added.
“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. It is the inherent duty of the Court to delve into the question of limitation, regardless of whether it is raised or not.”
“Carelessness, intentional or obvious sluggishness, or dearth of bona fide are no reason for condonation of delay,” the bench further stressed.
