| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 1042 2014 SLD 1042 2014 CLD 63 |
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No. 505 of 2013, heard on 7th October,2013.
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN AND ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JJ
Hamid Iftikhar Pannu for Appellant (in C.Ms. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013). �Majid Ali Wajid for
Respondent.
Regular First Appeal No. 505 of 2013, heard on 7th October,2013.
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN AND ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JJ
Hamid Iftikhar Pannu for Appellant (in C.Ms. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013). �Majid Ali Wajid for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD BOOTA
VS
BASHARAT ALI
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 202
Law: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section: 118
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 2,3
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 78,79,84
(a) High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders--- -----Vol. V, Part-A, Chap I, Rr.9 9-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 202--- Appeal--- Rules of procedure---Objections by High Court office, non-removal of within specified time---Consequences---Procedure to be followed by Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of High Court in such cases---Preliminary objection as to the expiry of limitation period for filing appeal---Failure of the appellant to remove the office objections within specified time---Respondent raised a preliminary objection that where the appeal was returned by the office of High Court for removing the objections within the specified time and meanwhile prescribed period for filing appeal lapsed, then such delay would render the appeal time-barred unless delay was explained through an application for condonation of delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and the delay was condoned by the court---Contention of the appellant that the appeal was not barred by time as the same was originally filed within time and the date relevant for determining whether the appeal was within time or not would be the date when the appeal was originally filed and mere delay in removing the office objections would not render the appeal time-barred---Validity---Office report showed that although the appeal was originally filed within time, however, the office objections were not removed despite repeating objections by the office and re-filings by the appellant, and when finally the objections were removed the time prescribed for filing the appeal had elapsed---Legal question for the High Court was as to which of the two dates would be treated as date of filing of the appeal for the purposes of limitation, the date on which the appeal was originally filed or the date when the office objections were finally removed---Held, that once appeal was originally filed within the prescribed limitation period but was returned within given time and when the office objections were finally removed the prescribed period of limitation for filing appeal elapsed, would not render the appeal barred by time---Present appeal being within the prescribed period of limitation and only because 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