| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5192 = 1966 SLD 5192 = 1966 PLD 319 |
West Pakistan Lahore
Letters Patent Appeal No. 110 of 1961, decided on 17th December 1965.
Presented By: Inamullah Khan, C. J. and Karam Elahi Chauhan,J
A. H. Najfi for Appellant. S. Manzoor Hussain Bokhari for
Respondent No. 2 (on 9-121965 only).
Letters Patent Appeal No. 110 of 1961, decided on 17th December 1965.
Presented By: Inamullah Khan, C. J. and Karam Elahi Chauhan,J
A. H. Najfi for Appellant. S. Manzoor Hussain Bokhari for
Respondent No. 2 (on 9-121965 only).
AON MUHAMMAD---Appellant
VERSUS
REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER----Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962
Section: 98
Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
Section: 3,151,5
Letters Patent (Lahore), cl. 10---Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98 and Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & Sch., Art. 151-Letters Patent Appeal against judgment given in writ jurisdiction-Court bound to examine plea of limitation-Period for such appeal-Twenty days as prescribed by Art. 151, Limitation Act, 1908. Where the argument was that section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was not applicable to the Letters Patent Appeal filed against the judgment given in writ petition and that as such the Court was not duty bound to give effect to the plea of limitation: Held, an appeal from a judgment, passed by the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, whether ordinary or extraordinary, in which the forum as well as the right of appeal is given by the Letters Patent, is governed by Article 151 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and to argue that the Act is not applicable to a Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of all force. The period of appeal against judgment given in writ jurisdiction is twenty days under Article 151 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and according to section 3 of the said Act, an appeal which is barred by time shall have to be dismissed. Punjab Co-operative Bank Limited, Lahore v. Official Liqui dators, Punjab Colton-press Company Ltd. (in Liquidation) and others A I R 1941 Lah. 257 ref. Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 3 & 5-Appeal time barred-Mere fact that Court had admitted appeal to regular hearing-Does not imply that time had been extended-Ex parte condonation of delay even if allowed open to objection by affected parties and Court subsequently hearing appeal could dismiss same as time-barred. In the matter of limitation there could not be-ex parte condonation or extension of time and even in cases where ex parte condonations are made, the affected parties can always, on coming to know of such orders, take exception thereto and claim that the matter is barred by time, the extension of time, if any, is illegal and that effect to plea of limitation should be given. Ex parte condonation of delay would be illegal as being opposed to violation of the principles of natural justice as…