• Rejects Sindh govt’s delayed appeal, observing delay in invoking legal remedies cannot be excused without sufficient cause
• Justice Mazhar stresses equality before law applies to state and private litigants alike
• Criticises routine govt pleas citing administrative delays as ‘mechanical and unpersuasive’
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Saturday emphasised that delay in invoking a lawful remedy by a person or entity, who was sleeping over their rights can be denied.
The observations came from a three-judge bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, while hearing a case involving the Sindh government.
The bench noted with concern the tendency of the federal and provincial governments, as well as autonomous bodies, to institute appeals after the lapse of the limitation period prescribed by law.
Authored by Justice Mazhar, the four-page order regretted that often the plea taken by the governments for condoning the delay was that fulfilling inter-departmental procedures and seeking final instructions from the competent authority delayed timely filing of the case.
Seemingly, applications for condonation of delay are being filed as a routine matter, while adopting a callous approach, which fails to recognise the delay cannot be condoned without the presence of sufficient cause or explaining delay of each and every day.
“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,” Justice Mazhar observed, adding 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 foresees the culmination of claims which have decayed by the efflux of time.
It is inherent duty of court to delve into the question of limitation, regardless of whether it is raised or not, he observed, adding carelessness, intentional sluggishness, or lack of bona fides could not be valid reasons for condoning a delay.
“We noted the mechanical and unpersuasive justification of administrative delays has almost become a trend, which is consistently pleaded for condonation of delay through stereotypical and generalised applications, which in our point of view cannot be considered ‘sufficient cause’ or a reasonable ground in every case,” the order said.
The issue arose when the Sindh government’s Land Acquisition Department challenged the April 12, 2022, order of the SHC’s Sukkur bench. In fact, the department had sought to contest a judgement passed on Feb 28, 2002, by the Referee Court/Additional District Judge, Sukkur, in Land Acquisition Reference/Suit No. 13 of 1989.
The SC noted that the civil appeal was time-barred by 30 days and the condonation application attached with the appeal does not specify any ground for indulgence of the apex court except few unconvincing and generic grounds.
No explanation was provided for the delay, nor was it clarified who was responsible for it. The court emphasised the question of limitation cannot be taken casually or unconscientiously. Any person or party wishing to file an appeal in a higher court must be vigilant and diligent in pursuing available remedy within the stipulated timeframe, the SC emphasised.
“If the department was negligent or reckless in causing the delay, then no premium can be placed on such conduct by granting condonation,” the court ruled. Consequently, the SC dismissed the civil appeal, both on merits and for being barred by time.
Published in Dawn, August 31st, 2025
