| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 896 1991 SLD 896 1991 SCMR 354 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 575 of 1989, decision dated: 6-06-1989(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 22-3-1989, passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 233 of 1985)
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, GHULAM MUJADDID AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petition No. 575 of 1989, decision dated: 6-06-1989(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 22-3-1989, passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 233 of 1985)
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, GHULAM MUJADDID AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. TAHIRA SULTANA and others
Dr. S. S. NAEEMUL HAMID and others
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art.185(3)---Limitation---Leave to appeal---High Court after examining record of copying agency and relevant provisions of manual came to conclude that appeal filed before Appellate Court below was within time and not barred by time---Petitioners having not been able to point out any misreading of evidence on part of High Court in coming to such conclusion, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. ORDER ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.---This petition for leave to appeal arises from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 22-3-1989. 2. The facts need not be given. The only question for consideration of this Court was whether the appellate Court was right in holding the appeal before it as barred by time by one day. This point has been examined by the High Court in detail and ultimately came to the conclusion that the appeal was within time and in holding so observed: "I have examined the relevant provisions of copying agency manual which provide that an application must contain a court-fee stamp of requisite value and dealing officer in the copying agency was to undertake scrutiny of such application to ascertain whether there was any objection. It is clear from the relevant register as noticed above that application of the petitioners was entered against serial number 22 on 2-1-1984. Since the application was not bearing court-fee stamp of requisite amount and order of the Presiding Officer of the Court allowing the issuance of the copy had also not been obtained, therefore, the copying agency according to the said manual should have returned the application. According to para. 3.8(iv) of the said manual, it is primarily the duty of the copying agency to obtain sanction of the higher authority if it was a prerequisite for the supply of copy. It may be a practice that instead of obtaining the sanction of the higher authority itself, the copying agency had been. requiring the appellant to get an order from such authority for supply of copy which will not change the legal position as stated above.…
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