| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1115 2022 SLD 1115 2022 SCMR 1615 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 609 of 2017, decision Dated: 13-02-2018, hearing Date : 13-02-2018. (On appeal from the order Dated 2.02.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.Ms. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2016 in F.A.O. No. 518 of 2014)
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmed Nawaz Ch., Advocate-on-Record (absent) Hamood ur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No.1. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 2 - 3.
Civil Petition No. 609 of 2017, decision Dated: 13-02-2018, hearing Date : 13-02-2018. (On appeal from the order Dated 2.02.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.Ms. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2016 in F.A.O. No. 518 of 2014)
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmed Nawaz Ch., Advocate-on-Record (absent) Hamood ur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No.1. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 2 - 3.
MESSRS SKB-KNK JOINT VENTURE CONTRACTORS THROUGH REGIONAL DIRECTOR
VS
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 3,5
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Ss. 3 , 5---Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution---Restoration of appeal after condoning a delay of more than six months---Legality---Application for restoration of appeal, on the face of it, was barred by law of limitation---Though a separate application for condonation of delay was also filed by the counsel for the respondent and cause for non-appearance on the fateful day was the illness of the counsel and the same was also supported by an affidavit but perusal of both the affidavits, one along with restoration application and the other with application for condonation of delay, would reveal that both these affidavits were filed for restoration of appeal and not for condonation of delay, which reflected the casual attitude of the counsel for the respondent before the High Court---Main reason for accepting the application for restoration of appeal by the High Court was the affidavit of the counsel and no doubt that normally such affidavits were given due weight by the Courts if the same were based on true facts---With the application for condonation of delay no medical certificate of the counsel was attached reflecting his duration of illness---Applications for restoration and condonation of delay did not reflect that what was the sufficient cause which precluded him from submission of said applications within the prescribed time---Limitation could not be taken as a mere technicality as by expiry of period of limitation, valuable rights accrued to the other party. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Ss. 3 , 5---Appeal filed by a government department after period of limitation---Condonation of delay---Government departments are also treated like an ordinary party before the Court and the same treatment has to be given to the government department as is given to the ordinary litigants. ORDER: MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE:---.--- The petitioner herein has questioned the order dated 2.02.2017 whereby the High Court while accepting the civil miscellaneous, filed by the respondent, restored the original F.A.O. No. 518/2014 by condoning a delay of more than six months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that…
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