| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 4858 = 1966 SLD 4858 = 1966 PLD 11 |
Baghdad ul Jadid
Civil Miscellaneous No. 948/S of 1964 (LHR), decided on 20th November 1965.
Presented By: Anwarul Haq and Abdul Kadir Sheikh, JJ
Ghulam Haider and another v. Abdul Ghani and others P L D 1949 Lah. 570 and Jujibhoy N. Surly v. T. S. Chettyar A I R 1928 P C 103 ref. Hari Ram v. Prem Nath and others A I R 1935 Lah. 341 rel.
Civil Miscellaneous No. 948/S of 1964 (LHR), decided on 20th November 1965.
Presented By: Anwarul Haq and Abdul Kadir Sheikh, JJ
Ghulam Haider and another v. Abdul Ghani and others P L D 1949 Lah. 570 and Jujibhoy N. Surly v. T. S. Chettyar A I R 1928 P C 103 ref. Hari Ram v. Prem Nath and others A I R 1935 Lah. 341 rel.
GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH-Appellant
VERSUS
GHULAM MUHAMMAD-Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 109
Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
Section: 12,179
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 109-Application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court - Limitation-Ninety days Filing of certified copies of judgment and decree required-Time taken in obtaining copies be excluded under S. 12, Limitation Act, 1908-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 179-High Court Rules and Orders (Lahore), Vol. V, Ch. 8-A-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(2)(a). Gaekwar, Baroda State Railway, Baroda v. Muhammad Habib Ullah and others A I R 1935 All. 258 distinguished. Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 12-Appeal or application not requiring filing of certified copies of judgment and decreeProvisions of S. 12, not attracted-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 109-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 179. ORDER ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court on the 3rd of April 1964 in R. F. A. No. 6 of 1962 (BWP). A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the application is barred by time. The relevant dates are' these. As already stated, the judgment was delivered on the 3rd of April 1964. The petitioner applied for copies of the judgment and decree on the 9th of April 1964 and the copies were ready on the 15th of July 1964, i.e., after 97 days. However, the copies were not collected by the petitioner until the 21st of July 1964, and the present application was filed on the 6th of October 1964. It was returned to the applicant for removing some objection pointed out by the office, and it was re-filed on the 10th of October 1964. Again, there was an objection and after the removal of this fresh objection the application was re-submitted on the 12th of October 1964. The contention is that even if the application be treated as having been filed on the 6th of October 1964, it was beyond the period of limitation for the reason that under the rules applicable to such applications it is not necessary to file copies of the judgment and decree with the application, and in fact no such copies have been filed with the present application. It is submitted that in these circumstances…