1986 PLP 1826 (SCMR)
Syed ZAWWAR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT POPULATION WELFARE DIVISION and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1826 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afza1 Zullah, S. A. Nusrat, and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | Syed ZAWWAR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT POPULATION WELFARE DIVISION and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1826 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1826 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afza1 Zullah, S. A. Nusrat, and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1826 (SCMR) (Syed ZAWWAR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT POPULATION WELFARE DIVISION and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th August,‑ 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal at Karachi passed in Appeal No. 86(K) of 1983). ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Limitation‑‑Time barred appeal‑‑No application /request made for condonation of delay‑‑Order of Service Tribunal dismissing appeal as time‑barred, upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
S.A.NUSRAT, J.‑‑The Service Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation and was time‑barred. The Tribunal also found that no application for request for condonation of delay was made. 2. The petitioner, who appeared in person, admitted that he had not applied for condonation of delay before the Tribunal. The order of the learned Tribunal in the circumstances, is unexceptionable. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M . I . Petition dismissed