1987 PLP 1153 (SCMR)
Mst. HAJRAN RHATOON and others Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1153 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. HAJRAN RHATOON and others Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1153 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1153 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1153 (SCMR) (Mst. HAJRAN RHATOON and others Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khan Muhammad Younas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Mian Khurshid Alam Ramay, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 9 to 17.
- Date of hearing: 27th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 27‑11‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 507‑R of 1982 and order, dated 6‑10‑1986 in Intra‑Court Appeal 283 of 1982). (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 5‑‑Law Reforms Ordinance (VIII of 1972), S. 3(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Time barred petition ‑‑Plea that petitioners had filed Intra‑Court Appeal as order impugned in High Court was order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 6‑11‑1982 and at relevant time no appeal was competent against this order, repelled‑‑Expression "original order" occurring in proviso to S.3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance (VIII of 1972) means order with which proceedings under the relevant statute commenced and order with which proceedings commenced in instant case was order passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 2‑1‑1960‑‑An appeal being competent against said order under relevant statute, Intra‑Court Appeal filed by petitioners was incompetent‑‑Benefit for time taken in pursuing this incompetent appeal, 115TF‑A could not be allowed‑‑Petition dismissed as time‑barred. P L D 1985 S C 107 and P L D 1984 S C 344 ref. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) ‑‑‑S. 5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation‑ Condonation of delay‑ ‑Time‑barred petition‑‑Plea that petitioners had filed an Intra‑Court Appeal, repelled because of its being incompetent‑ Held: Benefit for time taken in pursuing such incompetent appeal could not be allowed‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) ‑‑‑S. 5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation‑ Condonation of delay‑ ‑Time‑barred petition‑‑Plea that petitioners had filed an Intra‑Court Appeal, repelled because of its being incompetent‑ Held: Benefit for time taken in pursuing such incompetent appeal could not be allowed‑‑Petition dismissed. Khan Muhammad Younas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Mian Khurshid Alam Ramay, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 9 to
17. Date of hearing: 27th April, 1987. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This petition, according to the office note, is barred by 1419 days. Condonation of delay is sought on the ground that the petitioners had filed an Intra‑Court Appeal as the order impugned in the High Court was the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 6‑11‑1982 and at the relevant time no appeal was competent against this order. There is no force in this plea because the expression "original order" occurring in the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Act (VIII of 1972) means the order with which the proceedings under the relevant statute commenced (see P L D 1985 S C 107 and P L D 1984 SC 344) and admittedly, the order with which the proceedings commenced in this case was the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 2‑1‑1960. As an appeal was competent against the said order under the relevant statute the Intra‑Court Appeal filed by the petitioners was incompetent. The benefit for the time taken in pursuing this incompetent appeal cannot, therefore, be allowed. No good ground for condonation of delay is made out. This petition is dismissed as barred by time. M.I. /H‑10/S Petition dismissed.