LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that the strikes by the bar cannot be a justification to seek condonation of delays in filing of an appeal against any judicial order.

“Allowing such application on ground of lawyers’ strike would amount to recognising the lawyers’ strike as sufficient ground for not appearing in court,” remarks Justice Aalia Neelum in her decision dismissing an application seeking a condonation of 97 days in filing an appeal against acquittal of two in a gas theft case.

Petitioner Sajjad Ashraf filed an appeal for setting aside the impugned judgement passed by an additional district & sessions judge of Faisalabad on Oct 27, 2018 whereby two respondents namely, Tariq and Muhammad Arshad have been acquitted of the charge in a private complaint.

The petitioner also moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the acquittal of respondents. Through an application the petitioner took a plea that due to lockdown of district courts from Nov 27, 2018 to Jan 22, 2019 he could not apply/obtain certified copies of the impugned order.

He said when on Jan 22, 2019 the district courts opened, he without any delay applied for the certified copies of the judgement on Jan 24 which was prepared on Jan 28 and he received the same day.

Justice Neelum observes that if this time period for the preparation of certified copies is excluded, the appeal is within time. She notes that as per the record the lockdown was due to lawyers’ strike and allowing such application of condonation of delay on ground of lawyers’ strike, abstaining deliberately from the court work or boycotting the courts’ working is not only against the spirit of public policy, but an act of contempt of court that should not be respected in anyway.

“This situation cannot be accepted in public interest as well as in interest of justice,” the judge remarks.

She observes even during the period of strikes the petitions, bail applications etc are filed in offices.

“Strikes do not stop those litigants from moving their petitions and copy forms etc who are watchful of their rights,” she adds.

The judge further observes that the applicant could apply for the certified copies between the date of judgement on Oct 27, 2018 and before the date of lockdown on Nov 27. But he failed to do so within 32 days.

“I am of the view that, if there had been any strike of lawyers, it was illegal and unethical,” writes the judge in the decision.

She adds that such acts cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing petition, which has effect on legal rights of the respondents accrued to them due to non filing of petition within the period of limitation.

The judge dismissed the application and the appeal as well.

Published in Dawn, September 29th, 2021