1975 PLP 44 (SCMR)
MESSERS PAKISTAN RUBBER PRODUCTS — Petitioner Versus JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
| Citation | 1975 PLP 44 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MESSERS PAKISTAN RUBBER PRODUCTS — Petitioner Versus JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF |
| Primary Law | Limitation |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 44 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 44 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 44 (SCMR) (MESSERS PAKISTAN RUBBER PRODUCTS — Petitioner Versus JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khaild M. Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Yousuf Raft, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 12th September 1974.
- Khaild M. Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Yousuf Raft, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 11th February 1974, in Review Applica tion No. 1190 of 1973). -- Time taken in pursuing remedy of review-Can at utmost be con sidered for condonation of delay-Original order cannot, however, be taken to have been substituted by order on review so as to give start of limitation period from date of order on review-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).
Judgment & Decree
WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑The office objection is that the petition is barred by 432 days. The High Court in this case, delivered the judgment on the 31st October 1972. The petitioner moved an application for review of this judgment in the High Court on the 7th November 1972. The Review petition was dismissed on the 11th February 1974. The petition for special leave to appeal was filed on the 7th March 1974. The explanation of the petitioner is that the original order passed by the High Court on the 31st October 1972, was substituted by an order of the review petition dated the 11th February 1974, and the time for filing the petition for special leave to appeal started running from the 11th February 1974. The explanation of the petitioner is not satisfactory. The utmost the petitioner can demand is that the time taken by him in pursuing the remedy of review petition should be taken into consideration for condonation of delay. We are inclined to exclude the time taken in pursuing the review petition, but there is no explanation why the petition was filed on the 7th March 1974. The petitioner should have filed the petition for special leave to appeal immediately after the 11th February 1974. This being so, the petition is barred by time and is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.