Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 80 1974 SLD 80 1974 SCMR 33
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1967, decision dated: 19th June 1973.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Bahawalpur Circuit, Baghdadul Jadid, dated the 5th June 1961, in F. A. O. No. 6 of 1961/BWP)
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI AND MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Syed Akhlaque Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (S. M. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Yaqub Hussain Zairai, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Gut Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-R

Syed FAIZ ALI SHAH (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS)

VS

CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, LAHORE

Law:

Section:

(a) High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. V, Chap. 1-A (a)- R. 4-Appeal (Civil)-Office noting on memo. of appeal that appeal was barred by limitation, but High Court passing order: "we however, direct that this appeal shall be set down for 1-earing"­Appeal actually coming up for hearing before another Division Bench and Court suo motu raising question of limitation on basis of office note and dismissing appeal as time-barred-Earlier order capable of being interpreted as an order admitting appeal-­Second Division Bench should have granted opportunity to file affidavit explaining delay and praying for its condonation even if no application for condonation of delay had been filed earlier-Word "however" appearing in order of admitting Bench would not have been used if admitting Bench were not con­scious of office note-Admitting Bench, in circumstances, ban admitted appeal for regular hearing and thereby had condoned delay. Since the Bench hearing the appeal had raised the question of limitation suo motu in spite of the order of the admitting Bench, which was capable of being interpreted as an order admitting the appeal notwithstanding the office-note regarding the delay, the Bench should have in fairness granted the prayer of the counsel appearing in support of the appeal to file an affidavit explaining the delay and praying for its condonation if the explanation appeared to be satisfactory even if no application for condona­tion had been filed earlier. The word "however" used in the order of the admitting Bench, would not have been used if the admitting Bench had not been conscious of the office-note regarding limitation. It seems to indicate that notwithstanding the office-note the admitting Bench admitted the appeal for regular hearing and this it could only have done after condoning the delay as required by the rule. Since the order of the admitting Bench was susceptible of the interpretation that the delay, if any, had been con­doned, it could well have misled the appellant and his counsel into believing that the delay having been already condoned no further application for the condonation of the delay, if any, was necessary. In the circumstances it was…
🔒
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