Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Section: 22

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 12,12(2)(5),29(2)

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S. 22---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 29(2) & 12(2)---Appeal---Limitation---Appeal presented after the period of 30 days as prescribed by S.22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Computation of period of limitation---Section 12(2), Limitation Act, 1908, provided that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for appeal, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree appealed from shall be excluded---Section 12, Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable to an appeal under S. 22, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 by virtue of S. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Deeming provision---Construction---Scope---For construction of a deeming provision, which was a legal fiction, firstly attempt had to be made to ascertain the purpose for which said provision was created. Jamila Khatoon v. Tajunnisa PLD 1984 SC 208 rel. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 12---Limitation, computation of---Principles---Exclusion of time in legal proceedings---Application for obtaining certified copy for purpose of appeal, review etc.---Exclusion of "time requisite" for obtaining a certified copy of the decree---Onus upon/obligations of the applicant---Scope---Once cost for certified copy had been estimated by copyist, the onus for depositing the same was on applicant and assuming that the said applicant remained unaware of the fact that the cost was estimated same day of his/her application, then there existed no rule that made it obligatory upon copyist to communicate to the applicants that such cost had been estimated---Applicant had to demonstrate that they acted diligently and had no control over the "time requisite" for obtaining certified copies---Contention that S. 12(5) of the Limitation Act, 1908 required court-copyist to intimate to applicant the day on which the certified copy would be ready for delivery, even though such applicant had not deposited cost towards the same, was misconceived and absurd---Where applicant had committed delay in depositing cost for certified copy,…

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