| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 681 2005 SLD 681 = 2005 PLD 153 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.2196 of 2004, decision dated:5-11-2004.(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 1-9-2004passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi inI.-C. A. No. 177 of 2004).
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ
Civil Petition No.2196 of 2004, decision dated:5-11-2004.(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 1-9-2004passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi inI.-C. A. No. 177 of 2004).
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ
vsMs. FARAH ZAHRABOARD OF GOVERNORS, AREA STUDY CENTRE FOR AFRICA AND NORTH AMERICA, QUAIDEAZAM, UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD and anothervsMs. FARAH ZAHRA
Law: Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972
Section: 3
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 5
(a) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)------S. 3---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. V, Chap.I, R.4--�Intra-Court Appeal---Certified copy of ---Requirement--�Attaching of certified copy of order or is not required under Chap.I, R.4 of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, for filing Intra-Court Appeal. (b) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)------S. 3---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. V. Chap. I, R.4---Limitation Act (IX of 1908). S.5---Intra-Court Appeal--�Condonation of delay---Misconception of law---Appeal filed by appellant was time-barred---Plea raised by the appellant was that the delay was caused due to obtaining certified copy of passed by High Court---Validity---Ordinarily Supreme Court would not have excluded the period spent for obtaining certified copy of the but both the parties were under the impression that a certified copy was required for filing Intra-Court Appeal and that was the reason that issue of obtaining certified copy was neither raised by the respondent before Division Bench of High Court which passed the order nor in the concise statement filed by the respondent before Supreme Court nor even during arguments---Such mistake, therefore, was bona fide and Supreme Court excluded the period spent for obtaining certified copy of the while computing the period of limitation---Order passed by Division Bench of High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to High Court for decision afresh. PLD 1957 Kar. 843; PLD 1960 Kar. 741; 1975 SCMR 445; 1983 CLC 2853; PLD 1993 Lah. 141; 1971 SCMR 779; 1999 SCMR 108; 2000 SCMR 354 and 2003 SCMR 1772 ref.(c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------S.5---Condonation of delay ---Suo motu powers of Court---In suitable cases, Court for reasons to be recorded, can suo motu enlarge time and condone delay. Sarwar Khan v. Mir Ali and 10 others 1980 CLC 110 rel.Gulzarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.Syed Iqbal Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.Date of hearing: 21st October, 2004.JUDGMENT TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Ms. Farah Zahra (Respondent) having done…