| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1962 2004 SLD 1962 2004 CLC 1518 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 12119 of 2003, decision dated: 27-04-2004.
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Writ Petition No. 12119 of 2003, decision dated: 27-04-2004.
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
GULZAR
VS
BASHIR AKHTAR and 2 others
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908.)-------S. 148---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 199---Constitutional petition---Extension of time---Sufficient reasons---Misunderstanding of order---Petitioner failed to deposit surety bond within the time given by the. Court and application for extension of time filed by the petitioner was dismissed---Plea raised by the petitioner was that under S.148 C.P.C., the Court was empowered to extend the time as he misunderstood the order for deposit of surety bond Validity---Court declined extension of time being oblivious of the provisions of S.148 C.P,C. which empowered the Court to extend time fixed by it for sufficient and good reasons---Petitioner had given reason of misunderstanding of the order and according to law, such reason was a good ground for showing indulgence by the Court---Court to its discretion could extend time for doing any act from time to time and could enlarge such period even though the period originally fixed might have expired- --Application seeking extension of time was duly supported by affidavit the petitioner and there was nothing on the file to controvert the same, even in the form of a counter affidavit---Order of the Court refusing extension of time being illegal and void was set Aside---High Court allowed the petitioner one opportunity to deposit the surety bond subject to payment of costs---Petition was allowed accordingly.. Muhammad Farooq Imam v. Claims Commissioner, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1964 SC 585 and Dr. Sher Din Batra v. Abdul Rehman Wahla PLD 1983 Lah. 491 ref. Mrs. Tabinda Islam for Petitioner. Malik Amir Muhammad Joiya for Respondent No. 1. ORDER This Constitutional petition seeks judgment/order, dated 21-7-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Mianwali, wheretfy extension, in time for furnishing :surety by the petitioner was refused, to be declared illegal, void, and of no legal consequence. 2. Precisely relevant facts are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.25000 on 6-7-2002, on the basis of a pronote; dated 27-10-2000 allegedly executed by the petitioner before the learned Senior Civil Judge Mianwali. The petitioner in spite of…
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