| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 282 1999 SLD 282 1999 SCMR 249 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 1128, 1129 and 1130 of 1997, decision dated: 7-12-1998, hearing DATE : 1st December, 1998
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JJ
Muhammad Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 1128 of 1997).
Respondent No. 1. Ex parte (in Civil Appeal No. 1128 of 1997). Mansoor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advoc
Civil Appeals Nos. 1128, 1129 and 1130 of 1997, decision dated: 7-12-1998, hearing DATE : 1st December, 1998
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JJ
Muhammad Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 1128 of 1997).
Respondent No. 1. Ex parte (in Civil Appeal No. 1128 of 1997). Mansoor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advoc
Civil Appeal No. 1128 of 1997 Messrs WATTAN WOOLLEN MILLS (PVT.) LTD and others
VS
PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and others Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 1997 Messrs SATTAR TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. vs Messrs WATTAN WOOLLEN MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED and others
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art. 185(3) --- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 --- Petition for leave to appeal --- Limitation --- Condonation of delay --- Sufficient cause --- Limitation for filing petition for leave to appeal started froth the date the was announced by the High Court---Fact that petitioner allegedly came to know about the after nearly 5 months of the announcement by the High Court only established negligence on his part --- Supreme Court declined to condone delay in circumstances. JUDGMENT SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J. ---We propose to dispose of the above' mentioned three Civil Appeals by a common judgment as leave to appeal was granted in these cases through a consolidated order, dated 11 th of June, 1997. 2. We will first take up Civil Appeal No. 1130 of 1997 in which leave has been granted subject to the plea of limitation. The appeal is barred by 252 days. The appellant has sought condonation of delay of 252 days on the following grounds: "(4) That the suit of the petitioners was dismissed on 5th of July, 1994 their appeal also failed on 1-11-1994. The petitioners filed C.R. No.24 of 1995 before the learned . High Court which was partly accepted on 10-3-1996. In its judgment in C.R. No.24 of 1995 the learned High Court was pleased to order that respondents Nos. I and 2 were not entitled to 44 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land out of the resumed land. (5) That respondents Nos. I and 2 had filed W. P. No. 1371 of 1994 on the ground that the Board of Revenue Punjab/Provincial Government had taken proceedings to review their orders contained in Memoranda dated 16-6-1987 and 26-7-1987 aforesaid and that their act of reviewing their earlier orders giving 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land out of resumed land to them be declared to be in the absence of lawful authority. (6) That another Writ Petition No. 1564 of 1995 filed-by expropriated land owners of 76 Kanals 4 Marlas of land contending that on resumption of the said land they were entitled to its restoration. (7) That all the three matters i.e. C.R. No.24 of 1995, W.P. No. 1371 of 1994 and W.P. No. 1564 of 1995 came up for hearing before his Lordship Mr. Justice Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry on 10-3-1996.…
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