1985 PLP 969 (SCMR)
ZIA MOHIUDDIN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY‑GENERAL, FINANCE,
| Citation | 1985 PLP 969 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | ZIA MOHIUDDIN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY‑GENERAL, FINANCE, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 969 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 969 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 969 (SCMR) (ZIA MOHIUDDIN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY‑GENERAL, FINANCE,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st March, 1982.
- ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, rr.l & 2‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Review by Supreme Court‑‑Petition time‑barred by 184 days‑‑Delay caused due to failure of Advocate‑on‑Record in informing about impugned judgment and petitioner's pre‑occupations with medical care and attention of his ailing sister‑‑Crounds, held, not sufficient to explain delay‑‑Petition dismissed as time.
- Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Nasim, Advocate
- It appears that even the review petition filed in this Court is barred by 184 days. The judgment was delivered on 16th December 1980. The application for a copy of the judgment was filed on 3rd February 1981, that is, after the period of limitation had expired. The copy was ready on 21st March, 1981 but its delivery was taken on 27th July, 1981 and then the review petition was filed on 28th July, 1981 The reason advanced for making an application for a copy of the judgment after the expiry of the period of limitation is not rooted in any personal disability of the petitioner but the failure of his Advocate -on‑Record to inform him at a proper time of the judgment and also his own pre‑occupations with the medical care and attention to his ailing sister. These grounds are not sufficient for explaining the delay in filing a review petition. Hence it is dismissed as being time‑barred.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the Supreme Court's order, dated 16‑12‑1984). ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, rr.l & 2‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Review by Supreme Court‑‑Petition time‑barred by 184 days‑‑Delay caused due to failure of Advocate‑on‑Record in informing about impugned judgment and petitioner's pre‑occupations with medical care and attention of his ailing sister‑‑Crounds, held, not sufficient to explain delay‑‑Petition dismissed as time. Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Nasim, Advocate
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner, a civil servant, seeks review of an order of this Court, dated 16th December, 1986 refusing him leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The only ground on which the review is sought is that what this Court treated as the second representation was, in fact, the first representation and if that mistake had not occurred the conclusion drawn with regard to the appeal before the tribunal being time‑barred would not have been drawn. It appears that even the review petition filed in this Court is barred by 184 days. The judgment was delivered on 16th December 1980. The application for a copy of the judgment was filed on 3rd February 1981, that is, after the period of limitation had expired. The copy was ready on 21st March, 1981 but its delivery was taken on 27th July, 1981 and then the review petition was filed on 28th July, 1981 The reason advanced for making an application for a copy of the judgment after the expiry of the period of limitation is not rooted in any personal disability of the petitioner but the failure of his Advocate -on‑Record to inform him at a proper time of the judgment and also his own pre‑occupations with the medical care and attention to his ailing sister. These grounds are not sufficient for explaining the delay in filing a review petition. Hence it is dismissed as being time‑barred. M . I Petition dismissed.