2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI DAR and 2 others
| Citation | 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, CJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI DAR and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIB of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIB of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, CJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI DAR and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 47---Petition for leave to appeal against judgment of Service Tribunal---Delay, condonation of---Sufficient cause---Notice served- on counsel was stated to be misplaced---Petition for leave to appeal was barred by seventeen days---Affidavit to the effect that notice served on counsel for petitioner was misplaced would not constitute sufficient cause for excusing delay because even if notice was lost, counsel for the petitioner had the knowledge of announcement of decision and he could further confirm the matter from office of Service Tribunal---Affidavit to the effect that counsel for the petitioner appearing before Service Tribunal could not inform the petitioner about the decision, because notice was misplaced, would not bring the case within ambit of a bona fide mistake, but that was a case of negligence which could not be condoned---Contention that as C.P.C. was not applicable to the proceedings of Service Tribunal, strict view should not be taken, had no merits, because question of delay ,in filing petition for leave to appeal was to be seen in view of law of limitation and Supreme Court Rules and not in view of provisions contained in C.P.C.
- Abdul Rashid Abbasi, Advocate for Petitioner.
- M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing 5th May, 1999.
- 2. There is a condonation of delay application which is accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Kiani, Advocate, to the effect that he was intimated about the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal through a notice on 1-1-1999 but said notice was missed somewhere due to his inadvertence and, thus, he could not remember to inform the petitioner about the result of the appeal.
- 3. Mr. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal to this Court resulted due to the fact that notice served upon Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Kiani Advocate, was misplaced and thus, he failed to inform his client earlier. He has contended that delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal was due to bona fide mistake and could not be regarded as a negligence. The learned counsel has argued that as C.P.C. is not fully applicable to the proceedings before the Service Tribunal, the delay can be condoned without adverting the strict view taken in some of the authorities on this point.
- 4. Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has argued that this is not a bona fide omission but is a case of gross negligence. The learned counsel has argued that knowledge of the counsel would be deemed to be the knowledge of his client and thus, no indulgence can be shown in favour of the petitioner. He has submitted that there is a number of authorities on the point that delay in cases of negligence due to failure of the counsel to inform his client is not excusable. The learned counsel has cited the following authorities in support of his contention:--
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 28-12-1998 in Service Appeal No. 84 of 1996). Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council v. Abdur Rashid and 9 others PLD 1997 SC (AJ&K) 17; Rahmat Bibi and 4 others v. Ghazanfar Hussain and another PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 25; Muhammad Nawaz and 3 others v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and 3 others 1974 SCMR 223; Dr. Muhammad IqbaJ Qureshi v. Azad Government and others 1993 SCR 111; Mahboob and another v. Muzaffar Din 1992 SCR 338; Khadim Hussain Khan v. The State PLD 1982 SC (AJ&K) 13 and Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Ch. Muhammad Latif PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 70 ref.
Judgment & Decree
This petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 26-12-1998, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No. l was accepted. Respondent No. l filed an appeal challenging the order of Chief Conservator of Forests dated 29-10-1996 whereby the order of his promotion dated 4-1-1996 was set aside. The Service Tribunal has accepted his appeal and set aside the impugned order and restored the order of his promotion. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent that the petition for leave to appeal is time-barred by 17 days..
2. There is a condonation of delay application which is accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Kiani, Advocate, to the effect that he was intimated about the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal through a notice on 1-1-1999 but said notice was missed somewhere due to his inadvertence and, thus, he could not remember to inform the petitioner about the result of the appeal.
3. Mr. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal to this Court resulted due to the fact that notice served upon Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Kiani Advocate, was misplaced and thus, he failed to inform his client earlier. He has contended that delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal was due to bona fide mistake and could not be regarded as a negligence. The learned counsel has argued that as C.P.C. is not fully applicable to the proceedings before the Service Tribunal, the delay can be condoned without adverting the strict view taken in some of the authorities on this point.
4. Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has argued that this is not a bona fide omission but is a case of gross negligence. The learned counsel has argued that knowledge of the counsel would be deemed to be the knowledge of his client and thus, no indulgence can be shown in favour of the petitioner. He has submitted that there is a number of authorities on the point that delay in cases of negligence due to failure of the counsel to inform his client is not excusable. The learned counsel has cited the following authorities in support of his contention:-- In case reported as AJK Council v. Abdur Rashid and 9 others PLD 1997 SC (AJ&K) 17, it was held that knowledge of the counsel would be deemed to be the knowledge of the client and thus, failure of the counsel to inform his client about the decision of case does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay. In this case reliance was placed upon a case reported as Rahmat Bibi and 4 others v Ghazanfar Hussain and another (PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 25) and Muhammad Nawaz and 3 others v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and 3 others (1974 SCMR 223). In case reported as Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi v. Azad Government and others (1993 SCR 111), it was held that as the counsel admitted the service of notice on him few days after the announcement of judgment, his failure to inform his client did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay. Identical view was taken in cases reported as Mahboob and another v. Muzaffar Din (1992 SCR 338), Khadim Hussain Khan v. The State (PLD 1982 SC (AJ&K) 13), Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashnmir v. Ch. Muhammad Latif (PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 70).
5. After giving due consideration to the matter, I come to the conclusion that even if the period of limitation would reckoned from 1-1-1999, the date on which the notice was served on counsel for the petitioner, the petition for leave to appeal is tithe-barred by 17 days. The affidavit that notice served on counsel for the petitioner was missed, does not constitute sufficient cause for excusing delay because even if the notice was lost, the counsel for the petitioner had the knowledge of the announcement of decision and he could further confirm the matter from the office of the Service Tribunal. Therefore, the affidavit to the effect that the counsel for the petitioner in the Service Tribunal could not inform him of decision due to misplacement of notice does not bring the case within the ambit of a bona fide mistake rather this is a case of negligence which cannot be excused. The contention that as C.P.C. is not applicable to the proceedings of the Service Tribunal the strict view should not be taken, has no merits because the question of the delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is to be seen in view of the law of limitation and the Supreme Court Rules and not in view of the provisions contained in C.P.C.
6. In light of what has been stated above, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Hence, the petition for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed as being time-barred. H.B.T./108/SC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.