P L D (PLP)
PAKISTAN BUS SERVICE, RAWALPINDI‑Petitioner Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAWALPINDI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | PAKISTAN BUS SERVICE, RAWALPINDI‑Petitioner Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAWALPINDI‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Appeal‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Appeal‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (PLP) (PAKISTAN BUS SERVICE, RAWALPINDI‑Petitioner Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAWALPINDI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Against order of Regional Transport Authority‑Limita tion‑Practice of Revenue Board‑Days on which application for copy was made and day on which copy delivered‑Only one day to be excluded.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 219 of 1961‑62, decided on 31st July 1962, District Rawalpindi. Appeal‑
Against order of Regional Transport Authority‑Limita tion‑Practice of Revenue Board‑Days on which application for copy was made and day on which copy delivered‑Only one day to be excluded. I need not go into the facts of this transport appeal as it is time‑barred. The order of the Regional Transport Authority was passed on 26‑2‑1962. An application for a certified copy was made by the appellant company on 1‑3‑1962 and it was supplied on 29‑3‑1962. Excluding the days spent for obtaining the copy, the Appeal should have been filed on or before 25‑4‑1962, but it was actually filed on 26‑4‑1962. The counsel for the appellant company has argued that in computing the period of limitation both days, the day on which the application for a copy was made and the day on which it was delivered, should be excluded from the calculations. I do not agree with the learned counsel as according to practice of the Board of Revenue only one day is to be excluded. There is no law or legal pronouncement on this particular point and it really depends upon the practice in force in each Court. The practice of the Board of Revenue, however, has been to exclude one day only. Mr. Zaheer Abbas has not been able to convince me that both the days have to be excluded and has not produced any ruling to support his conten tion. I would, therefore, hold that the appeal is time‑barred by one day, and for this one day's delay no reasonable cause has been shown. In the circumstances the appeal stands dismissed. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.