| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1987 SLG 580 1987 SLD 580 1987 SCMR 1531 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 122 of 1973, decided on 22nd May, 1973. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23rd October, 1973, passed in Writ Petition No. 592/11 of 1965).
SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND ANWARUL HAQ, JJ
Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Masud Zakaria, Advocate, Supreme Court with him instructed by Khawaja Wali Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court Abid Hassan and Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 122 of 1973, decided on 22nd May, 1973. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23rd October, 1973, passed in Writ Petition No. 592/11 of 1965).
SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND ANWARUL HAQ, JJ
Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Masud Zakaria, Advocate, Supreme Court with him instructed by Khawaja Wali Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court Abid Hassan and Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate
Ch. SHAFQAT ALI
VS
Rao ABDUS SATTAR
Law:
Section:
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-----S. 5--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Limitation-Petition for special leave to appeal time-barred--Petitioner claiming benefit of period spent in prosecuting a review application against impugned order of High Court dismissing his writ petition--Question whether he was entitled to deduction of said period for purpose of filing petition for leave to appeal, held, required looking into--Leave granted. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ---O. XXII, Rr. 3(2) & 4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 177 & 181--Abatement of writ petition--Application for substitution--Limitation for--Leave to appeal granted to consider legal questions (i) whether Art. 177 o1 Limitation Act 1908 did not apply to Constitutional petition, (ii) whether Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) applied to cases under consideration; and (iii) whether in view of sub-rule (3) added to Order XXI I , Rule 4, C . P . C . , there would be no abatement of writ petition even though application for substitution had been made beyond period of limitation.--[Abatement]. Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1970 SC 1 and Noor Ahmad and others v. Chattomal Gurmukhdas and others A I R 1934 Sind 36 distinguished. Ghulam Haider v. Met. Raj Bhari and others P L D 1973 Lah. 372 and PLD 1969 SC 599 cited. ORDER SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.--This petition appears to have been barred by 93 days. 2. The impugned order is dated the 23rd of October, 1972. The present petition was filed on the 30th of March, 1973. The petitioner has sought to get the benefit of the period he spent in prosecuting a review application from the impugned order. The review application was filed on the 6th of November, 1972, and it was rejected on the 13th of March, 1973. On the same day the petitioner applied for s certified copy of the order rejecting the review petition, and he obtained the certified copy on the 29th of March, 1973. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to a deduction of the period between 6thl November, 1972 and the 23rd of March, 1973, for the purpose of filing the present petition. This is a…
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