| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 677 2016 SLD 677 2016 PLC 666 |
Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Punjab
C.M. No. 02 of 2009 in S.A. No. 14 of 2009, decided on 27th February, 2015.
MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, CHAIRMAN, SHAHID WAHEED AND AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, MEMBERS
Syed Ijaz Qutab for Applicant. Nayyar Iqbal Ghauri for
Respondent.
C.M. No. 02 of 2009 in S.A. No. 14 of 2009, decided on 27th February, 2015.
MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, CHAIRMAN, SHAHID WAHEED AND AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, MEMBERS
Syed Ijaz Qutab for Applicant. Nayyar Iqbal Ghauri for
Respondent.
Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
VS
The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 5
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 5---Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991), S.5---Service appeal---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Sufficient cause---Scope---Negligence and slackness---Condonation of delay in filing service appeal had been sought on the ground that counsel engaged by the applicant was a patient of "gout" and during Eid vacations he suffered from swelling of joints---Validity---"Sufficient cause" would be a cause beyond control of the party and same would rule out inaction, culpable slackness and negligence---Want of due care would be sufficient to non-suit the party seeking indulgence of sufficient cause---Party seeking condonation of delay had to explain each day's delay after expiry of period of appeal---Contents of application as well as affidavit were silent with regard to number of Eid holidays and commencement of the same---Appeal, in the present case, was prepared on 2nd of October, 2009 while Eid holidays were 21st and 22nd September---Appeal was ready for filing prior to Eid-ul-Fitr---Affidavits were sworn by the applicant before the Oath Commissioner on 19th of September, 2009 which was Saturday---Ample time was available with the applicant to prefer appeal in the office but no attempt was made to submit the same---Actual and physical presence of counsel for the appellant was not necessary for filing of appeal---Anyone could have filed the appeal in the office---Nothing was on record to suggest that counsel for the applicant intimated to him the compelling circumstances for non-filing of appeal though time was running and ultimately it expired---Applicant was bound to remain in touch with his counsel---Element of want of care and attention would amount to negligence and carelessness ruling out bona fide and due diligence---Date of recovery of counsel for the applicant from ailment had not been mentioned either in the application or in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay---Such omission would be sufficient to non-suit the applicant---Contents of application that appeal was promptly filed without wastage of time after recovery of counsel would not be sufficient to prove the case of…
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