[Limitation Act, and Criminal Cases]
According to Limitation Act:
Article 150. Appeal from death sentence to High Court-7 days.
Article 151. High Court order on original side-appeal-20 days.
Article 154. Appeal to any Court other than High Court-30 days.
Article 155. Criminal appeal to High Court-60 days.
Article 157. Appeal from acquittal by State-6 days.
To Supreme Court (special leave to appeal)-30 days.
Limitation for filing appeal to Federal Shariat Court under Procedure Rules 1981, R 18(A)/22(A) is 60 days. 1995 SCMR 1347, Nazir Ahmed etc.
Revision against acquittal filed after 60 days in F.S.C. was dismissed as there was no application for condonation of delay. PLJ 1994 FSC 32, Muhammad Zubair v. Ijaz Hussain Shah.
Criminal Revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. No limitation is prescribed in the Act. Criminal Revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. made more than 60 days after order not entertained, because of the general rule of practice in all High Courts, PLD 1950 Bal. 48. Crown v. Sultan Ali.
Limitation for appeal u/S. 20 of Ordinance VII of 1979. No Limitation prescribed. Held, period of appeal 60 days. 1982 PSC 246 (FSC) Azmat Khan PLJ 1982 FSC 44.
Rule of practice not based on law condemned. (SC) PLD 1962 SC 495. Khalid Saigol.
Revision from acquittal filed by private party after a delay of 8 months not considered inordinate. (DB) PLD 1963 Kar. 66 Savitri v. Gopal Das. (SC) PLD 1962 SC 249. Abdur Rashid.
Criminal Revision under section 435, Cr.P.C. to be filed within 30 days in the Court of Sessions/District Magistrate. PLD 1961 Dacca 239 Muhammad Nur.
Delayed Revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. Revision petition cannot be rejected on mere ground of delay or laches. (DB) AIR 1934 Lah. 264 Des Raj v. Emperor.
No limitation for filing revision petition, but such application must be filed within reasonable period, depending on circumstances of each case. PLJ 1986 Cr.C. (Kar.) 423. Mst. Mehmooda Begum v. Amir-ud-Din etc.
Revision and laches. Revision petition filed after a lapse of 22 months. It merits dismissal on the short ground of laches. 1958 P.Cr.LJ 442. Mst. Buzurg Bibi v. Abdul Rashid etc.
Appeal filed beyond limitation treated as revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. by High Court. PLD 1959 Lah. 50 Sarwar. PLD 1962 Quetta 5. AIR 1931 Lah. 145.
Appeal barred by limitation. Waiver by Court, of question of limitation is not permissible even where period of limitation is prescribed by special or local law. (SC) PLD 1969 SC 167 Ahsan Ali v. District Judge and others.
Limitation for Letters Patent Appeal. Time requisite for obtaining copy of judgment cannot be excluded. Limitation is 20 days from the date of the order. AIR  1935 Lah. 328. (FB) Jog Dhian v. Hussain. (DB) PLD 1972 Kar. 84.
Contra: Time requisite for obtaining copies of Judgment and decree sought to be appealed from under Letters Patent to be excluded under section 12 in computing period, of limitation. (SC) PLJ 1974 SC 1 = PLD 1974 SC 17 = 1974 SCMR 33. Syed Faiz Ali.
Letters Patent Appeal, (now Intra Court Appeal) Limitation Act, not applicable. Under section 10 of Lahore High Court Letters Patent, general provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to the L.P.A. The provision is complete in itself. (DB) ILR 2 Lah. 127. Dayal Singh v. Budha.
Computing time for obtaining copies: Method explained. ILR 17 Lah. 429. (FB).
Delivery of copies and limitation. High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. I, Chapter XIV-D para. 2, clause (ii), sub-section (d). "The date communicated to the applicant for taking delivery of the copy or the date on which it is ready for delivery, whichever is later, shall be deemed for the purpose of such calculation to the day on which it is given", (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 443. Gul Muhammad v. Allah Ditta. AIR 1936 Lah. 771 rel.
Copying agency is to inform the applicant to take delivery of copy on a certain day. Else period of limitation for purposes of appeal is to be computed from the date when copy is actually delivered to the applicant and not from the date when copy is ready for delivery. PLD 1972 Quetta 47. Muhammad Hussain v. Ghazi etc.
Delay due to copy branch. Copy branch to inform the petitioner, whether the copy was ready. Such delay condoned. PLJ 1973 SC 193 W.P.I.D.C. Karachi v. Aziz. (SC) PLJ 1974 SC 1 Syed Faiz Ali Chief Administrator, Auqaf.
Late delivery of copies. Copies of judgment appealed against ready on 7-4-64 but delivered on 25-4-64. Copying agency did not give any date for delivery. Appellant held, entitled to deduct period upto 24-4-1964. PLD 1977 Lah. 376 Kala v. Allah Dad.
Time between preparation of copy and delivery cannot be excluded from computation of limitation when the petitioner could not show that he was not informed when the copy was ready or he did not know it. PLJ 1976 BJ 42. Muhammad Ashraf etc. v. Abdul Majid etc.
Petitioner failed to collect certified copy for 15 days. No case made out for condonation of delay. 1987 SCMR 313 Abdul Khaliq Chaudhri v. Chief Engineer.
Period of vacation to be excluded. Notification providing for daily receipt of petition during vacation from such persons as may choose to present them gives an option to the petitioners and it is doubtful if the word petition covers the word memorandum of appeal, further the notification cannot take precedence over statutory provision. (SC) 1975 SCMR 452 Fazal Karim etc. v. Ghulam Jilani etc.
Limitation is Supreme Court. No time deducted when Supreme Court remains closed as the institution goes on when the Supreme Court office remains open. (SC) 1968 SCMR 1065 = 1970 SCMR 238. Fateh Ali v. Muhammad Khan.
Clients must watch the progress of their appeal. If the advocate does not inform the clients of the disposal of the appeal the petitioners suffer for their negligence. (SC) 1974 SCMR 57 Muhammad Khan.
Sciatica in legs is not a sufficient reason for condonation of delay. The petitioner could easily instruct some one to file petition for leave to appeal. Petition dismissed. (SC) 1976 SCMR 347. Syed Alamdar Hussain v. Muhammad Ramzan etc.
Counsel of the appellant sick. Petition barred by 5 days. Delay condoned. 1984 SCMR 1463 Muhammad Javed.
Mistaken advice by counsel may be considered a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. (SC) PLD 1974 SC 22 Nazar Muhammad v. Mst. Shahzada.
Wrong advice by counsel, valid excuse only if based on bona fide mistake. Mistake committed on account of negligence by not studying law on subject and by not exercising due care and caution is "not a sufficient cause. "Held, limitation creates a valuable right in favour of the other party and cannot be defeated on flimsy grounds. (DB) PLD 1971 Lah. 332 Wali Muhammad etc. v. Inamul Hassan.
Petition barred by 101 days, delay condoned as property worth over a crore of rupees involved and questions raised are of public importance. PLJ 1989 SC 411. Deputy Collector Customs v. Muhammad Tahir etc.
Delay of 548 days condoned because the petitioner was not a party to the case and filed the petition for leave to appeal when he came to know of the order appealed from. (SC) 1969 SCMR 42. Ch. Khan Ali.
Rule 18(1)(A) Federal Shariat Court, appeal barred by 560 days, delay condoned in filling appeal for sufficient cause. PLJ 1997 FSC 213, Muhammad Siddique.
Name not shown in list. Petitioner's counsel's name not shown in cause list of High Court when revision petition taken up for hearing. Explanation held, valid and delay condoned. (SC) 1982 SCMR 410 Muhammad Akram v. Shahzada Begum.
Void order and erroneous order limitation for setting aside: Bar of limitation can be ignored in respect of void orders but not in respect of erroneous orders. Question of limitation would not arise in respect of judgments which were nullity in law, void or ultra vires. Where order was without jurisdiction and void it need not be formally set aside. 1996 SCMR 856, Muhammad Shafi v. Mushtaq Ahmed = PLJ 1996 S.C. 1844.
Void order. Question of limitation does not arise against a void order. PLD 1974 Lah. 434. PLD 1958 (Pak.) 104 ref.
Limitation under section 517, Cr.P.C. No limitation is prescribed for an application under section 517, Cr.P.C. PLD 1975 Lah. 45 Jalal Khan.
Each day's delay to be explained as of necessity. Valuable right accrues to the other side by lapse of time. (SC) 1975 SCMR 304 Muhammad Hussain v. S & R Commissioner.
Delay of each day to be explained. Delay of each day after receipt of copy of order not explained nor any attempt made to explain. Explanation of delay of 10 months not confidence-inspiring. Appeal dismissed as time barred. (SC) 1974 SCMR 423. Mehar Khan v. Barkat Bibi.
Petition barred by 437 days. Condonation sought on the ground that the appeal had been wrongly filed before an incompetent forum and time thus spent be excluded, held, not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. 1985 SCMR  903 Fazal Karim etc. v. Government of Pakistan.
Delay raises no equities in criminal cases. (SC) PLD 1965 SC 287, M.S. Khawaja.
Delay not to be condoned. When State did not appeal from acquittal in time but High Court asked the state to appeal when revision was filed by a private party. Events happening subsequent to the expiry of limitation cannot be made a ground of condonation. 1982 PSC 751 (Ind.) Ajit Singh etc.
Petition for leave to appeal barred by 48 days, with no satisfactory evidence for this delay. Petition dismissed as time-barred. 1996 SCMR 474, Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Arshad etc.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal from acquittal barred by one day. Accused acquiring right to live and valuable right of liberty. Delay not explained satisfactorily. Petition dismissed as time-barred. 1985 SCMR 893. Nur Hussain v. Muhammad Saleem.
Condonation of delay in appeals from acquittal cannot be lightly taken as to expose the acquitted accused to jeopardy. Appeal dismissed as time-barred. 1986 SCMR  738. Mst. Rafiqan v. Muhammad Riaz.
Appeal from acquittal barred by 3 days dismissed. Delay can be condoned only if the appellant is prevented from filing the appeal either by the acquitted person or by circumstances of compelling nature. PLJ 1981 SC 619 Hussain Bakhsh v. Allah Bakhsh.
Appeal from acquittal barred by 8 days delay not condoned as no good ground shown and the acquitted accused had gained a valuable right of life. 1985 SCMR 216 Shamman etc.
63 days delay in filing appeal condoned in case of offence u/Ss. 365, 365-A/34, PPC for the reason that gravity of offence affecting society in general and because material evidence had been discredited. PLJ 1999 SC 755 State v. Nazir Ahmed etc. = 1999 SCMR 610.
Delay in filing Cr.P.S.L.A. against acquittal can be condoned when the petitioner is prevented by an act of the accused to file the petition or that he was kept out of knowledge of acquittal. PLD 1994 S.C. 667, Mst. Zeenat Sultan v. Mumtaz and 9 others.
Leave to appeal from acquittal time-barred. Delay not condoned because:
(i) Petitioner not prevented by accused from filing appeal.
(ii) Acquitted person acquires a valuable right.
(iii) Reasons for condonation vague. (SC) NLR 1981 Cr. 293. Saldera v. Muhammad Yar etc.
Condonation of delay by Supreme Court,-- Petition for Special leave to appeal by convict barred by two days. Delay condoned though explanation not quite satisfactory. PLJ 1980 SC 1. Israr.
Delay in filing petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court condoned as the petitioner was in jail. 1996 SCMR 308, Bashir Ahmed.
Jail appeal from death sentence barred by 38 days, to Supreme Court. Delay condoned as the appellant stated that he could not afford to engage a counsel. 1988 SCMR 1640 Noor Muhammad 1988 SCMR 1643 Rahm Din.
Condonation of delay in jail appeal. Supreme Court condoning delay of 159 days. NLR 1981 Cr. 1 (SC) Bashir Ahmed.
Oral application for condonation of delay entertained by Supreme Court as it was a fit case and there is no prohibition in Rule (2) of Order XII of Supreme Court Rules 1980 as the matter is at the discretion of the Court. PLJ 1992 S.C. 445, Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan v. Land Acquisition Collector.
Application for condonation of delay dismissed yet Supreme Court examined the case as valuable rights of inheritance were involved. The petition was barred by 7 days. 1882 SCMR 935, Mst. Qabal Jan v. Mst. Habab Jan etc.
12 days' delay in jail appeal condoned by Supreme Court as the appellant had been sentenced to death. 1985 SCMR 507 Muhammad Nazir.
Review barred by 1119 days. Delay condoned as mistake apparent on face of record. Petitioner illiterate and in jail. (SC) 1978 SCMR 292 Abdur Rehman.
Condonation of delay by Supreme Court. Petition beyond time and petitioners convicted for capital crimes. Consistent with practice of Court delay condoned. (SC) PLD 1977 SC 52 Muhammad Din etc.
Delay condoned due to long sentence. Jail petition for leave to appeal barred by 125 days. Delay condoned by Supreme Court in view of petitioner's long sentence. 1986 SCMR 536. Muhammad Daud etc.
Delay of 103 days condoned in Cr. PSLA as the case was of capital punishment. 1983 SCMR 423. Riaz Masih.
Delay of 279 days in filing PSL appeal in the Supreme Court condoned as the application for condonation of delay about the statements of the facts was supported by affidavit and as it did not concern the liberty of a citizen the Court condoned the delay. 1995 SCMR 1525, Muhammad Rafiq.
Delay of 351 days in filing appeal condoned when Supreme Court had allowed leave to appeal against acquittal of co-accused. 1983 SCMR 1018. Rasab etc.
Condonation of delay. Sufficient cause means circumstances beyond control of the party concerned. PLD 1977 SC 102 Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Sarwar.
Poverty and illness. Prisoner filing appeal under section 410, Cr.P.C. in capital case after 2« years. Delay condoned. (DB) 1978 P.Cr.LJ 546 Muhammad Sharif.
Condonation of delay; important question of law involves. Delay of 66 days condoned in Cr.PSLA for cancellation of bail. PLJ 1986 SC 369 State v. Zubair etc.
Limitation Act when in conflict with special law, held, special law shall prevail over Limitation Act. Therefore, limitation period provided by Rules of Shariat Court for appeal u/S. 417, Cr.P.C. shall prevail over period prescribed by Limitation Act. Rules provide period of 60 days. 1990 SCMR 164 State v. Zahid Hussain.
Shariat Court Rules of limitation, 1981 prevail over the general law as given in the Limitation Act, or any other statute. 1990 SCMR 164. State v. Zahid Hussain.
Limitation for filing appeal does not run in cases where trial is void ab initio 1986 SCMR 962, Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Punnu Khan etc. 1987 SCMR 1543 Malik Khawaja Muhammad v. Marduman Babar Kahol etc. PLD 1969 Lah. 1039, Hussain Bakhsh etc. v. Settlement Commission etc.