P L D 1997 Supreme Court 563 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUS SALAM and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1997 Supreme Court 563 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUS SALAM and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1997 Supreme Court 563 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1997 Supreme Court 563 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1997 Supreme Court 563 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUS SALAM and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Sharif Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch.Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 9‑6‑1996 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in C.R.No.673‑D of 1996). Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was barred by 18 days‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑‑Certified copies were prepared and completed on 15‑7‑1996, while petitioner collected such copies on 6‑11‑1996‑‑‑Petitioner almost took four months in collecting certified copies‑‑No reasonable explanation had been given for such inordinate delay‑‑‑Petitioner having acted negligently, his request for condonation of delay was not allowed‑‑Petition for leave was dismissed as time‑barred. West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi 1973 SCMR 555 and Fazal Rahman v. Rahim Gul and others. 1981 SCMR 1258 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.--This petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 9-6-1996 is barred by 18 days. Petitioner seeks condonation of delay on the ground that the certified copies were prepared and completed on 15-7-1996 but the` Copying Agency gave no intimation to him with the result that he collected the copies on 6-11-1996. According to the learned counsel, the entire time spent until the collection of copies by the petitioner would be a "time requisite" for obtaining the copies within. the meaning of section 12 of the Limitation Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi 1973 SCMR 555 and Fazal Rahman v. Rahim Gul and others 1981 SCMR 1258. Both these cases are distinguishable on facts because in the first case, the impugned order of the High Court was passed on 7th September, 1964; application for certified copy of the order was made on the same. day; Copy was made ready on 14th October, 1964, stamp was supplied on 15th October, 1964 on which date the copy was certified and the copy was supplied on 17th October, 1964. This shows that the petitioner in the precedent case was actively pursuing the matter and the copy of the order was supplied to him within three days of its having been made ready, while in the instant case petitioner took almost four months in collecting the copies and no reasonable explanation has been given for this inordinate delay. Petitioner appears to have acted with utter negligence. Similarly in the second case, too, the copies of the judgment and decree were made ready on 27th of June, 1968 and were delivered on 12th of July, 1968 i.e. within 15 days. As observed above, petitioner in the present case acted negligently and, therefore, we are not persuaded, in the peculiar facts of the case, to allow his request for condonation of delay. His application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed with the result that the petition for leave to appeal stands dismissed as time-barred. A.A./M-3365/S Leave refused