| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1988 SLG 300 1988 SLD 300 1988 PLD 258 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.285-R of 1986, decision dated: 27-02-1988.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH AND USMAN ALI SHAH, JJ
Kh. Muhammad Naeem, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by M.Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record (absent). Nemo.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.285-R of 1986, decision dated: 27-02-1988.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH AND USMAN ALI SHAH, JJ
Kh. Muhammad Naeem, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by M.Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record (absent). Nemo.
AHMAD NAWAZ and others
VS
MUHAMMAD AYUB
Law:
Section:
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-----5. 12--Time requisite for obtaining copy--Period between the date when the copy is ready and the date when it is delivered, held, could not be excluded as of right--Delay could be condoned only on furnishing of sufficient explanation in that behalf--Supreme Court, however, desired legislative intervention to the effect that the period spent from the date of application for copy up to the duly intimated date of delivery of the same, be treated as time requisite for obtaining copy. . [pp. 258, 259] A & B West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi 1973 S C M R 555 and Fateh Muhammad and others v. Malik Qadir Bakhsh 1975 S C M R 157 ref. Gul Muhammad v. Allah Ditta P L D 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 443 mentioned. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from Judgment dated 27-9-1986 of the Lahore High Court.; whereby petitioners Civil Revision was dismissed. 2. The petitioners' suit for declaration having been dismissed, their appeal was dismissed as time barred. The petitioners' revision before the High Court also failed on the ground that the condonation of delay being a matter of discretion by the lower at appellate Court, no justification had been made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the disputed period; namely, between the date when the copy is ready and the date when it is delivered, should have been excluded as of right being requisite for obtaining the copy. He has relied on West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi 1973 S C M R 555. 4. The Judgment in the case of Industrial Development Corporation, as also some other Judgments, including Fateh Muhammad and others v. Malik Qadir Bakhsh 1975 S C M R 157, were noticed by the High Court. It was rightly held that under the existing law the period as is in…
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