1969 PLP 48 (SCMR)
MESSRS SHEIKH COTTON FACTORY, VEHARI Petitioner Versus THS PROVINCE OF WES C PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 48 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Abdus Sattar, JJ |
| Parties | MESSRS SHEIKH COTTON FACTORY, VEHARI Petitioner Versus THS PROVINCE OF WES C PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 48 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 48 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Abdus Sattar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 48 (SCMR) (MESSRS SHEIKH COTTON FACTORY, VEHARI Petitioner Versus THS PROVINCE OF WES C PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehrajuddin Chaudhry, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the‑ 22nd February 1968, in Writ Petition No. 1978 of 1964).
O. XIII, r. 1‑Petition barred by time‑Explanation for delay: that petitioner was out of station on business bent‑Not sufficient for condonation of delay.
Judgment & Decree
O. XIII, r. 1‑Petition barred by time‑Explanation for delay: that petitioner was out of station on business bent‑Not sufficient for condonation of delay. Malik Muhammad Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehrajuddin Chaudhry, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 8th October 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑This petition for special leave to appeal is barred by 66 days. The explanation that the petitioner had gone to Karachi in connection with the disposal of cotton bales does not constitute sufficient ground for extension of time within Order X111, rule
1. Moreover there is no explanation for the delay between the 13th of June 1968, when the copy of the High Court judgment was delivered to the petitioner and 27th of June 1968, when the present petition was filed. Dismissed as barred by time. Petition dismissed.