| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 2476 2002 SLD 2476 2002 PLD 394 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 575 of 1995, decided on 11th February, 2002.
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY HAMID ALI MIRZA AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Secretary Forests, Peshawar and others--Appellants Muhammad Waris Khan, Additional Advocate-General, N.W.F.P. for Appellants Malik Fazal Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on
Civil Appeal No. 575 of 1995, decided on 11th February, 2002.
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY HAMID ALI MIRZA AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Secretary Forests, Peshawar and others--Appellants Muhammad Waris Khan, Additional Advocate-General, N.W.F.P. for Appellants Malik Fazal Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on
GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Forests, Peshawar court and others
VS
SAID AKBAR SHAH & COMPANY
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 96---Appeal---Limitation---Two Government functionaries were defendants in the suit and each one had independent right to file an appeal against the preliminary decree, jointly or independently and there was no impediment in their way to obtain separate certified copies of the appealed against---One defendant obtained the copy of the beyond the limitation period while the superior officer amongst the two defendants (Government functionaries) had rightly applied for the certified copy of the and obtained the same and appended with the memo. of the appeal---Validity---Notwithstanding the fact that when there were defendants more than one they had separate right to file appeal being dissatisfied from the operating against them and could prefer an appeal before the Appellate Court in terms of S.96, C.P.C. and for doing so they could separately obtain certified copy of the intended to be appealed against and out of the copies of one of them could be appended with the memo. of appeal, but Court hearing the appeal could not raise objection that as two or more copies of the were obtained therefore the one on the basis of which appeal became time-barred should be appended or it should be presumed that as on the basis of another copy of which was obtained by one of the defendants the appeal had become time barred although the same had not been appended with the memo. of appeal under consideration. Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah v. Muhammad Ramzan and others 1976 SCMR 347 distinguished. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 100---Appeal---District 'Judge had not touched the merits of the case at all and dismissed the appeal being time-barred---High Court, in appeal had held that the appellant had got no case on merits---Validity---High Court, in such a situation might have refrained to comment on the merits of the case--Appeal of the appellant having been found to be within time, Supreme Court instead of remanding the case to the High Court remanded the same to the District Judge for decision of appeal on merits. JUDGMENT IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.----This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492