| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLG 953 1997 SLD 953 1997 PLC 750 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.402 of 1995, decision dated: 7-11-1995. (On appeal from the judgment and order dated 21-3-1995, passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No.45-R of 1995).
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, JJ
Raja Muhammad Bashir, Deputy AttorneyGeneral and Ch. Akhtar Ali, AdvocateonRecord for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
Civil Petition No.402 of 1995, decision dated: 7-11-1995. (On appeal from the judgment and order dated 21-3-1995, passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No.45-R of 1995).
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, JJ
Raja Muhammad Bashir, Deputy AttorneyGeneral and Ch. Akhtar Ali, AdvocateonRecord for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance
VS
NIAZ AHMAD
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)Art. 212(3)Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5Condonation of delayTimebarred appeal filed by GovernmentInordinate delay not explainedGovernment not entitled to be treated differently in matter of condonation of delayAppeal against judgment of Service Tribunal barred by 57 daysGround taken in application for condonation of delay was that matter in question remained pending for discussion and consideration between relevant Government Departments which caused delay in filing petition for leave to appealJustificationGovernment being party to lis, could not claim to be treated in any manner differently from ordinary litigant, so far as limitation was concernedGovernment in fact, enjoys unusual facilities for preparation and conduct of their cases; that if in spite of such facilities Government could not comply with requirement of law of limitation, then it was for it to take steps to have that law changed, and that each day's delay must properly and satisfactorily be explainedTime said to have been spent during which various Authorities were examining the matter with a view to decide whether appeal should or should not be filed could not be excusedVague and general assertion having been made in condonation application and delay of 57 days having not been duly and properly explained, there was no justification for condoning inordinate delayPetition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pir Ahmad Khan 1981 SCMR 37 rel. JUDGMENT ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.This petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal is barred by 57 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the ground taken is that the matter "remained pending for discussion and consideration between Finance Division, Establishment Division and the Military AccountantGeneral" which caused…
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