| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1981 2016 SLD 1981 2016 SCP |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals No. 2564/2001, 2658/2006, 1670/2008,60-L/2013, 280-L/2013, 60/2014, 965/2014 and 218/2015,16/8/2016
MR., JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, HCJ, MR., JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, MR., JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, MR., JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM AND MR., JUSTICE MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JJ
Civil Appeals No. 2564/2001, 2658/2006, 1670/2008,60-L/2013, 280-L/2013, 60/2014, 965/2014 and 218/2015,16/8/2016
MR., JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, HCJ, MR., JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, MR., JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, MR., JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM AND MR., JUSTICE MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JJ
Khushi Muhammad (Deceased) Through L.Rs. (In C.A.2564/2001) And 7 OthersVSMst. Fazal Bibi Etc. (In C.A.2564/2001)And 7 Others
Law:
Section:
Keywords: Result: JUDGMENT MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J:- Through these matters we have been called upon to answer the question as to whether the time spent in pursuing an appeal before a wrong forum can be condoned and/or excluded from the prescribed period of limitation. In the above context certain ancillary and incidental propositions also require resolution:- (i) Whether Section 14 of the Act applies to appeals and if not, whether the principles enshrined therein (Section 14) can be made applicable while considering if a sufficient cause has been made out under Section 5 of the Act; (ii) Whether the institution and the pendency of the appeal before a wrong forum i.e. one having no jurisdiction on account of wrong advice of the counsel constitutes a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (the Act); (iii) Where an appeal which has been entertained by the staff of the court or the court itself which has no pecuniary jurisdiction and is ultimately returned to the appellant or is dismissed, whether this protects the appellant from the bar of limitation and/or constitutes a sufficient cause for the condonation of delay on the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit; and (iv) Whether the discretion exercised by the court(s) below in condoning the delay cannot be interfered with by the higher court(s) unless the discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily. It may be pertinent to mention here that this is not the first time that the superior Courts have been asked to provide answers to these questions; on the contrary it has been a recurring issue coming before the courts time and again and unhappily there happen to be drastically divergent/conflicting views on the subject. Thus we wish to resolve the conflict so as to have a binding effect on all those concerned in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution). As the aforesaid propositions are common to all these matters we intend to resolve the same before examining and deciding the individual cases on their own merits. 2. Extensive arguments have been made by the learned counsel for the parties for…