1981 PLP 893(1) (SCMR)
IFTIKHAR AHMAD KHAN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) ETC.- -
| Citation | 1981 PLP 893(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IFTIKHAR AHMAD KHAN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) ETC.- - |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 893(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 893(1) (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: 1981 PLP 893(1) (SCMR) (IFTIKHAR AHMAD KHAN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) ETC.- -). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Ahmad Hassan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 13th April, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court; Lahore, dated 4-4-1974 in W. P. No. 508-R/67).
Art. 185(3)-Petition for leave to appeal barred by 3 days
Ground urged for condonation of delay : that petitioner believed registry of Supreme Court closed during relevant period and as such petition could not be filed-Ground, held, not sufficient for condonation of delay-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This is a petition against an order of the High Court dated 4-4-1974, whereby a constitutional petition being W. P. 508-R/67 filed by the respondents herein was accepted. The petition is barred by 3 days. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that he was under an impression that during vacations, the registry of the Supreme Court is not open and that case cannot be filed during that period. For this reason it has been submitted that the delay in the filing of the petition may be condoned. The ground taken in our opinion, is not sufficient to condone the delay.
2. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.