| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 46 2017 SLD 46 2017 PLD 1 |
Islamabad High Court
F.A.O. No. 88 of 2015 Dated 22nd April, 2016. Hearing Date :22nd March, 2016.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Zahid Idrees Mufti for Appellant.Syed Ishtiaq Haider for
Respondent.
F.A.O. No. 88 of 2015 Dated 22nd April, 2016. Hearing Date :22nd March, 2016.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Zahid Idrees Mufti for Appellant.Syed Ishtiaq Haider for
Respondent.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY --AppellantVS.MESSRS CHINA PETROLEUM ENGINEERING CORPORATION --Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 104 & O.XLIII, R.1---Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Sections 39, 33 & 30---Appeal from order---Limitation---Appeal filed before High Court within prescribed time but, after removing office objections, re-filed after expiry of limitation period---Maintainability---Office objections raised and case file returned without fixing time for re-filing---Effect---Limitation period for filing an appeal under S. 39 of Arbitration Act, 1940 was ninety days, computed from the date of the order appealed from---Originally, the appeal had been filed within the time---Excluding the time period between when the office objections had been raised and the appeal returned, and when the appeal was re-filed, the appeal would have been barred by time---Objections raised by the office of the High Court after filing of the appeal were not such as would have rendered the appeal incompetent, and the office objections did not suffer from any fatal defect, as the same were at the best of ministerial in nature---Period, within which the office objections were required to be removed, had been left blank, and the office had not indicated a time within which the deficiencies/objections had to be cleared; therefore, the appeal could not have been held to be time barred---Court would refuse to entertain an appeal, in cases where the delay in re-filing of the appeal after an office objection was far in excess of the period fixed by the officer for the re-filing after removal of objection---Defendant could not be penalized for the inaction of the officer by not fixing a period for removal of the objections---Officer had also not issued any notice to the defendant for the removal of the office objections---Objection as to maintainability of the appeal on ground of limitation was repelled in circumstances. National Highway Authority v. Zarghoon Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd 2015 MLD 746; Mian Corporation through Managing Partner v. Messrs Lever Brothers of Pakistan Ltd through General Sales Manager, Karachi PLD 2006 SC 169; Muhammad Farooq Shah v. Shakirullah 2006 SCMR 1657; Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, Karachi v. Messrs Mustafa Sons (Pvt.) Ltd,…