1969 PLP 960 (SCMR)
GHULAM ABBAS‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR‑UD‑DIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 960 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM ABBAS‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR‑UD‑DIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 960 (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 960 (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: 1969 PLP 960 (SCMR) (GHULAM ABBAS‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR‑UD‑DIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- J. A. Parvez, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamuni, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 26th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 21st July 1967, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1674 of 1967).
O. XIII, r. 1‑Delay‑Explaruztioli that petitioner's daughter was ill and so petition could not be filed in time‑Explanation not substantiated by documentary evidence Delay not condoned.
Judgment & Decree
O. XIII, r. 1‑Delay‑Explaruztioli that petitioner's daughter was ill and so petition could not be filed in time‑Explanation not substantiated by documentary evidence Delay not condoned. J. A. Parvez, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamuni, Senior Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 26th October 1967. S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑This petition is barred by 12 days and there is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming for the delay in his application for condonation, the petitioner has himself stated that copies of the relevant order had been obtained on the 30th September 1967. Subsequently, it is claimed, the petitioner's daughter was ill in hospital, and therefore, he could not go to Lahore till the 5th October 1967, and lodged the petition on the 6th October 1967. This explanation is not substantiated by an documentary evidence, and we are not satisfied that the petitioner showed due vigilance in approaching this Court. The petition is dismissed as time‑barred. Petition dismissed.