2005 PLP 1696 (MLD)
Mst. AMANA BEGUM — Appellant/Applicant Versus DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, KHANEWAL and 15 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1696 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. AMANA BEGUM — Appellant/Applicant Versus DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, KHANEWAL and 15 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1696 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1696 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1696 (MLD) (Mst. AMANA BEGUM — Appellant/Applicant Versus DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, KHANEWAL and 15 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Intra-Court appeal-`-Limitation---Delay, condonation of---Appellant, along with Intra-Court appeal had filed application for condonation of delay---Appellant in her application had submitted that she being a Government employee did not attend the Court on the date impugned order was passed---Appellant had further submitted that when she came to know about fate of her Constitutional petition, she immediately applied for copy of impugned order and filed the present appeal---Appellant was bound to be vigilant about her case, merely because she had engaged an Advocate, would not mean that she was relieved of her duty to keep herself fully informed about proceedings of her case---Constitutional petition was dismissed in presence of counsel for appellant and failure of counsel to intimate appellant in time regarding dismissal of her Constitutional petition, was no ground for condonation of delay---No ground having been made out for condonation of delay application for condonation was rejected and consequently Intra-Court appeal being barred by time, was dismissed.
- 5. It was the duty of the applicant/appellant to, be vigilant about her case, merely because she had engaged an Advocate did not mean that she was relieved of her duty to keep herself fully informed about the proceedings of her case. The writ petition was dismissed in presence of learned counsel for the appellant and his failure to intimate her in time regarding the dismissal of her petition, is no ground for condoning the delay, "Jhanda v. Maqbool Hussain and others" (1981 SCMR 126), and "Muhammad Ramzan and 4 others v. Settlement Authorities and 2 others" (1981 SCMR 194) are respectfully relied upon. Needless to add that the learned counsel for the appellant has also not even filed his affidavit to the effect that he conveyed the fate of appellant's writ to her on 8-4-2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5
Intra-Court appeal-`-Limitation
Appellant, along with Intra-Court appeal had filed application for condonation of delay
Appellant in her application had submitted that she being a Government employee did not attend the Court on the date impugned order was passed
Appellant had further submitted that when she came to know about fate of her Constitutional petition, she immediately applied for copy of impugned order and filed the present appeal
Appellant was bound to be vigilant about her case, merely because she had engaged an Advocate, would not mean that she was relieved of her duty to keep herself fully informed about proceedings of her case
Constitutional petition was dismissed in presence of counsel for appellant and failure of counsel to intimate appellant in time regarding dismissal of her Constitutional petition, was no ground for condonation of delay
No ground having been made out for condonation of delay application for condonation was rejected and consequently Intra-Court appeal being barred by time, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Through this I.C.A., order dated 10-3-2005 passed in W.P. No.4756 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge in Chambers has been assailed.
2. Along with the I.C.A. an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed as the appeal is admittedly barred by time.
3. It is submitted in the application that the applicant/appellant is a Government employee and did not attend the Court on the date the impugned order was passed; that on 8-4-2005, order of the dismissal came to her knowledge and she became aware about the fate of her writ petition and she immediately applied for copy of the impugned order and this appeal was filed.
4. Arguments have been heard on the application of condonation of delay.
5. It was the duty of the applicant/appellant to, be vigilant about her case, merely because she had engaged an Advocate did not mean that she was relieved of her duty to keep herself fully informed about the proceedings of her case. The writ petition was dismissed in presence of learned counsel for the appellant and his failure to intimate her in time regarding the dismissal of her petition, is no ground for condoning the delay, "Jhanda v. Maqbool Hussain and others" (1981 SCMR 126), and "Muhammad Ramzan and 4 others v. Settlement Authorities and 2 others" (1981 SCMR 194) are respectfully relied upon. Needless to add that the learned counsel for the appellant has also not even filed his affidavit to the effect that he conveyed the fate of appellant's writ to her on 8-4-2005.
6. The reasons given in the application do not carry any force, therefore, no ground has been made out for the condonation of delay. The application is rejected.
7. Consequently without going into merits of appeal, the same being barred by time is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A-524/L Appeal and Application dismissed.