2017 PLP 54 (CLCN)
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Regulation Wing Services and General Administration Department and another — Appellants Versus MOHAMMAD YOUSAF and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 54 (CLCN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Regulation Wing Services and General Administration Department and another — Appellants Versus MOHAMMAD YOUSAF and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 54 (CLCN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 54 (CLCN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 54 (CLCN) (GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Regulation Wing Services and General Administration Department and another — Appellants Versus MOHAMMAD YOUSAF and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Hussain, Assistant Advocate General along with Tariq Mehmood Awan, Assistant Commissioner, Sadar, D.G., Khan for Appellants.
- Abdur Rashid Sheikh for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3 & 4
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 151
Single Judge of High Court passed order in question on 20-5-2013 whereas intra-court appeal was filed on 12-6-2013
Appeal was barred by two days and under Art. 151 of Limitation Act, 1908, prescribed period was 20 days and under S. 4 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, period of limitation was to start from the date of decree or order
Appellants were bound to challenge order in question within the stipulated/prescribed time, period of limitation i.e. 20 days
Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by the single Judge of High Court, as the intra court appeal was time barred and order in question had already been complied with
Intra-court appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. [Paras. 6 & 8 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
I.C.A. No.187 of 2013 in Writ Petition No. 17 of 2008, heard on 7th January, 2015. Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)
Ss. 3 & 4
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 151
Single Judge of High Court passed order in question on 20-5-2013 whereas intra-court appeal was filed on 12-6-2013
Appeal was barred by two days and under Art. 151 of Limitation Act, 1908, prescribed period was 20 days and under S. 4 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, period of limitation was to start from the date of decree or order
Appellants were bound to challenge order in question within the stipulated/prescribed time, period of limitation i.e. 20 days
Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by the single Judge of High Court, as the intra court appeal was time barred and order in question had already been complied with
Intra-court appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. [Paras. 6 & 8 of the judgment] Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi 2014 SCMR 1594 rel. Rana Muhammad Hussain, Assistant Advocate General along with Tariq Mehmood Awan, Assistant Commissioner, Sadar, D.G., Khan for Appellants. Abdur Rashid Sheikh for Respondents.