2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SHAFQAT ULLAH TUNIO Versus PIA (PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES)
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ |
| Parties | SHAFQAT ULLAH TUNIO Versus PIA (PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES) |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SHAFQAT ULLAH TUNIO Versus PIA (PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Rahim Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-On-Record for Petitioner.
- Amir Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Sher Muhammad Khan, Advocate-On-Record (Absent) for Respondents.
- ----O. XIII, R.1---Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, R.21--Petitioner for leave to appeal---Delay of 9 days---Leave to appeal sought against judgment, dated 28-8-2002 communicated to petitioner on 7-9-2002 through registered post---Record showed that first copy of impugned judgment was issued on 7-9-2002, while its second copy was issued on 29-9-2002, which fact per se would not enlarge period of limitation---Despite timely written notice to Advocate-on-Record by office pointing out that petition was barred by 9 days, no efforts were made for 2-1/2 years to move application seeking enlargement of time explaining facts and grounds for delay---Supreme Court dismissed petition as barred by time.
- RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---At the very outset this petition is barred by 9 days. The impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 28-8-2002 was dispatched to the petitioner through registered post vide a covering letter, dated 7-9-2002 available at page 50 of the Paper Book. Even in the prayer clause of the memo. of petition Advocate-On-Record has specifically stated that the leave to appeal may be granted against the judgment, dated 28-8-2002 communicated through covering letter, dated 7-9-2002. Instant petition for leave to appeal was, however, presented in the office of this Court on 5-11-2002.
- 4. It is ironical to note that despite timely written notice to the learned Advocate-On-Record by office pointing out that the petition was barred by 9 days no efforts were made to move an application seeking enlargement of time explaining the facts and grounds for delay. After the lapse of 2-1/2 years Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi now requests for time to move an application for enlargement of time which is untenable on the face of it.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 28-8-2002 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.486(K)/1997).
O. XIII, R.1
Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, R.21--Petitioner for leave to appeal
Leave to appeal sought against judgment, dated 28-8-2002 communicated to petitioner on 7-9-2002 through registered post
Record showed that first copy of impugned judgment was issued on 7-9-2002, while its second copy was issued on 29-9-2002, which fact per se would not enlarge period of limitation
Despite timely written notice to Advocate-on-Record by office pointing out that petition was barred by 9 days, no efforts were made for 2-1/2 years to move application seeking enlargement of time explaining facts and grounds for delay
Supreme Court dismissed petition as barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
At the very outset this petition is barred by 9 days. The impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 28-8-2002 was dispatched to the petitioner through registered post vide a covering letter, dated 7-9-2002 available at page 50 of the Paper Book. Even in the prayer clause of the memo. of petition Advocate-On-Record has specifically stated that the leave to appeal may be granted against the judgment, dated 28-8-2002 communicated through covering letter, dated 7-9-2002. Instant petition for leave to appeal was, however, presented in the office of this Court on 5-11-2002.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the title of the judgment sheet available at page 19 of the Paper Book attempted to persuade us that this copy was actually dispatched on 29-10-2002 but the endorsement at the top of the page "1st Copy issued on 7-9-2002" by the Assistant Registrar of Federal Service Tribunal clearly shows that it was made by office of Federal Service Tribunal while issuing second copy to the petitioner on 29-10-2002 and otherwise there was no occasion for making such endorsement.
3. Learned counsel insisted that copy of the letter, dated 7-9-2002 was handed over to the petitioner on 29-10-2002 along with copy of judgment but there is no evidence to this effect. Even otherwise this fact per se would not enlarge the period of limitation for filing petition before this Court. Examining the case in the light of the facts and circumstances the office appears to be right in pointing out that the petition filed before this Court is patently barred by 9 days.
4. It is ironical to note that despite timely written notice to the learned Advocate-On-Record by office pointing out that the petition was barred by 9 days no efforts were made to move an application seeking enlargement of time explaining the facts and grounds for delay. After the lapse of 2-1/2 years Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi now requests for time to move an application for enlargement of time which is untenable on the face of it.
5. No ground for extension of time is thus made out. Resultantly petition is dismissed as barred by time. S.A.K./S-120/SC Petition dismissed.