| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 631 2020 SLD 631 2020 PLD 136 |
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No. 317 of 2019, decision Dated: 22-10-2019.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Aley Maqbool Rizvi, Additional Advocate General Sindh (AAG) for Appellants.
High Court Appeal No. 317 of 2019, decision Dated: 22-10-2019.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Aley Maqbool Rizvi, Additional Advocate General Sindh (AAG) for Appellants.
PROVINCE OF SINDH AND OTHERS
VS
M/S PAKROCK CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 3,5
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 12(2),O.XXIII,R.3
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Ss. 3 & 5---Void order---Appeal against purported void order---Limitation period---Party could not take refuge for not challenging an order on the ground that it was a void order---Incumbent upon a party claiming the order to be void to establish invalidity of the said order and also to prove that the order was without jurisdiction. Blue Star Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax 2013 SCMR 587 ref. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 3---Limitation period, expiry of---Vested right---Law helped the vigilant and not the indolent and after the expiry of the limitation period a vested right was always created in favour of the other side. Muhammad Nawaz and 3 others v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and 3 others 1974 SCMR 223 and Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Collector of Customs, Sialkot Dry Port, Samberial District Sialkot and others v. Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through General Manager and 3 others 1998 SCMR 307 ref. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) -- ----Ss. 3 & 5---Condonation of delay, application for---Scope---Once limitation started it could only be condoned after considering valid, cogent and plausible reasons for the same. (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 3---Limitation period, expiry of---Court, duty of---Scope---Court was duty bound to dismiss a lis before it if the same was barred by limitation and no plausible explanation had been furnished, with regard to such delay. (e) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Ss. 3 & 5---Condonation of delay, application for---Scope---In a time barred matter each day's delay had to be satisfactorily explained. Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rais Ahmed Khan 1981 SCMR 37; Nakuleswar Sikdar v. Barun Chandra Chakravorty and another 1971 SCMR 54; Government of Punjab through Secretary (Services) Services General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and another v. Muhammad Saleem PLD 1995 SC 396; Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darji and others 1970 SCMR 558 and The Deputy Director, Food, Lahore Region, Lahore and others v. Syed Safdar Hussain Shah 1979 SCMR 45 ref. (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 12(2) &…
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