Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3792 2016 SLD 3792 2016 YLR 1667
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revisions Nos. 31-B and 43-B of 2007, decided on 13th August, 2014. Date of hearing: 13th August, 2014.
MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, JUSTICE
Syed Abid Hussain Bukhari for Petitioners. Saifur Rehman Khattak Addl. A.G. for the State. Abdur Rasheed Khan Marwat for
Respondents.

AQLEEM KHAN AND others

VS

. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA AND others

Law:

Section:

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)----- -----Ss. 5 & 12-----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 4-----Condonation of delay-----Sufficient cause-----Exclusion of time in legal proceedings-----Scope-----Plea of appellants was that after excluding the time of obtaining copy 30 days would expire on 16-02-2007 on Friday and when they reached the office/court at 12.15 noon, on the said date the court business had been closed by then because of Friday/half working day and such delay was inadvertent, not deliberate, bona fide and due to half working day-----Delay, in circumstances, was beyond the control of appellants-----If it was held that appellants' appeal was time-barred, it was actually barred by one day only and prescribed time was expired on Friday-----Such delay could have been condoned under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908-----Day of announcement of and the time required for obtaining copy was to be excluded for filing the appeal-----Said exemption had been provided by the statute which could not be snatched-----Fundamental right that "to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law was inalienable right of every citizen"-----Said right had to be enforced by the court in the discharge of judicial function-----Impugned was not only against the statutory provisions of law provided in the Limitation Act, 1908 but also against fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution-----Appellate Court was not supposed to disbelieve the explanation given by the appellants for delay without examining record of the copying department when such question for determining the crucial time for limitation had been set out-----Office of the court could not be equated with court if copying office remained opened-----Notification for working of office could not be equated with statutory right which had been conferred by Art. 4 of the Constitution-----Delay of one day had been explained and sufficient cause had been mentioned through affidavit by the appellants-----No counter-affidavit was on record to be considered by the court-----Word "sufficient cause" must receive liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice in absence of negligence,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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