2000 PLP 675 (SCMR)
Mst. AMENA BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAQEES and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 675 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, Actg. C.J. and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | Mst. AMENA BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAQEES and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 675 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 675 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, Actg. C.J. and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 675 (SCMR) (Mst. AMENA BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAQEES and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 14th September, 1999.
- (2) That the applicants went to a learned Advocate-on-Record who told the applicants that time for filing the petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court is 60 days and they should file the petition on or before 19-7-1999. The applicants went to the Supreme Court in the month of July, 1999 so that they should engage an Advocate-on- Record to file a petition for leave to appeal. However, the applicants were informed that the Supreme Court is closed for summer vacations and would reopen in the month of October. The applicants went to Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court on 7-9-1999 and asked him to prepare petition for leave to appeal so that it could be filed on the re-opening of the Supreme Court. However, the applicants were informed that the petition could be filed in the summer vacations as the office is not closed and that section 4 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the Supreme Court regarding summer vacations.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XIII, R.1
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 185(3)
Delay of fifty three days in filing petition was sought to be condoned on ground that Supreme Court was closed in the month of July for summer vacations-- Petitioner who had obtained copy of impugned judgment of High Court in the month of May, could easily file said petition within time when Supreme Court was open
Even otherwise Registries of Supreme Court being non vacation offices, petitioner could file petition even if Supreme Court was closed due to summer vacation
Petitioner, having failed to explain each day of limitation satisfactorily, petition was dismissed being barred by time. Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Collector of Customs, Sialkot Dry Port, Samberial, District Sialkot and others v. Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through General Manager and 3 others 1998 SCMR 307 and Lehar Khan and others v. Amir Hamza and others 1999 SCMR 108 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, ACTG. C.J.
This petition is barred by 53 days. The delay is sought to be condoned on the following grounds:-- "(1) That the judgment of the High Court was announced on 10-5-1999. The petitioners-applicants applied for the copy of the judgment on 12-5-1999. The copy was prepared and delivered to the applicants on 19-5-1999. (2) That the applicants went to a learned Advocate-on-Record who told the applicants that time for filing the petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court is 60 days and they should file the petition on or before 19-7-1999. The applicants went to the Supreme Court in the month of July, 1999 so that they should engage an Advocate-on- Record to file a petition for leave to appeal. However, the applicants were informed that the Supreme Court is closed for summer vacations and would reopen in the month of October. The applicants went to Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court on 7-9-1999 and asked him to prepare petition for leave to appeal so that it could be filed on the re-opening of the Supreme Court. However, the applicants were informed that the petition could be filed in the summer vacations as the office is not closed and that section 4 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the Supreme Court regarding summer vacations. (3) That on this, the petition was prepared hurriedly on 7-9-1999 and is being filed on 8-9-1999 without any further delay. (4) That delay in lodging the petition for leave to appeal is not intentional but has occasioned because of the circumstances which A were beyond the control of the applicants."
2. We are afraid the above plea hardly constitutes a valid ground for condonation of delay. In this regard reference may be made to the cases of Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Collector of Customs, Sialkot Dry Port, Samberial, District Sialkot and others v. Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. trough General Manager and 3 others (1998 SCMR 307) and Lehar Khan and others v. Amir Hamza and others (1999 SCMR 108) wherein it was held that each day of limitation must satisfactorily be A explained and that the Registries of Supreme Court were non-vacation offices.
3. The petition is dismissed being time-barred. H.B.T./A-195/S Petition dismissed,