2022 PLP 672 (SCMR)
ASADULLAH KHAN and others — Appellants Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 672 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mushir Alam and Munib Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | ASADULLAH KHAN and others — Appellants Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 672 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 672 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mushir Alam and Munib Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 672 (SCMR) (ASADULLAH KHAN and others — Appellants Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
- Jamshed Ahmed Faiz, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur in R.As. Nos. S-215 and S-214 of 2010).
Arts. 185(2) & 185(3)
Practice of filing a Petition for Leave to Appeal under Art. 185(3) of the Constitution, where an appeal is competent under Art. 185(2) or under the statute but has become time barred
Supreme Court deprecated such practice and observed that it amounted to hoodwinking the spirit of the law and that such practice must be brought to an end.
Judgment & Decree
MUSHIR ALAM, J.
These appeals are hopelessly barred by 27 and 28 days respectively. It appears that the appellant, instead of filing direct appeals within contemplation of Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, preferred leave petitions, considering the limitation to be 60 days though in the case of direct appeal, the limitation is 30 days. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, office raised objection and returned the leave petitions on such count. Though the same were filed on the next day as Direct Appeals but unfortunately the instant appeals ran out limitation within contemplation of 185(2) d) (supra),
2. Heard. When confronted that in view of the judgment of this Court reported as Mst. Gul Jan and others v. Naik Muhammad and others (PLD 2012 SC 1), wherein this Court held that the practice of filing a C.P.L.A. under Article 185(3) of the Constitution where an appeal is competent under 185(2) of the Constitution or under the statute but has become barred by time amounts to hoodwinking the spirit of the law and such practice must be brought to an end, the learned counsel was unable to persuade us otherwise. Consequently, both the applications for condonation of delay (C.M.As. Nos.246-K and 248-K of 2021) are dismissed with the consequence that these appeals are dismissed as barred by time. MWA/A-12/SC Appeals dismissed.