| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 98 1981 SLD 98 1981 SCMR 37 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petitions Nos. 109 to 112 of 1975, decision dated: 19th February 1980
DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
Abdul Haque Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court, Riazul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all the Petitions). Nemo for
Respondents
Criminal Petitions Nos. 109 to 112 of 1975, decision dated: 19th February 1980
DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
Abdul Haque Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court, Riazul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all the Petitions). Nemo for
Respondents
COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax-
VS
Rais PIR AHMAD KHAN C. P. No. 110 of 1975 COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE vs Rais SHABBIR AHMAD KHAN C. P. No. 111 of 1975 COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE vs Rais WAZIR AHMAD KHAN C
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 3,5
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---Ss. 3 & 5-Condonation of delay-Various authorities examining matter with a view to decide whether or not appeal be filed-Time spent on such deliberation, held, cannot be excused-Government, held further, cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant. Time said to have been spent during which various authorities were examining the matter with a view to decide whether an-appeal should or should not be filed cannot be excused. The Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that so far as the limitation is concerned, the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant. In fact, the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its resources are much larger than those possessed by ordinary litigants. If in spite of these facilities the Government cannot comply with the requirement of law of limitation, then it is for it to take steps to have that law changed. Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darji 1970 S C M R 558 The Deputy Director, Food, Lahore Region, Lahore etc. v. Syed Safdar Hussain Shah 1979 S C M R 45 and Custodian of Enemy Property v. Hoshang N. Dastur and others 1979 S C M R 191 ref; (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---- ----Ss. 3 & 5-Limitation-Delay-Each day to be satisfactorily explained-Matter having remained under different departmental levels-Not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay.-[Delay]. According to the law each day of limitation must properly and satisfactorily be explained and the excuse that the matter got delayed because of its having remained under examination at different departmental levels is never a valid ground for extension of period of limitation and does not constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. It is a matter of regret that despite this position being repeatedly clarified by the Supreme Court and the High Courts the Government Departments with all their resources continue to delay the filing of the cases in time with loss to the Government and the public interest. It is high time that the Government Departments so organise their business 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