1975 PLP 179 (SCMR)
Haji GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus DAYA RAM — Respondent
| Citation | 1975 PLP 179 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus DAYA RAM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Limitation Act (Ix of 1908), (a) Privilege |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 179 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Limitation Act (Ix of 1908), (a) Privilege as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 179 (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: 1975 PLP 179 (SCMR) (Haji GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus DAYA RAM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- -- Attending session of Senate by Senator---A personal privilege- Cannot be extended to professional work-Contention that counsel, a Senator, could not appear on date of hearing due to his attendance at session of Senate and was entitled to privileged treatment, held, entirely misconceived.
- G. H. Abbasl, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 17th September 1973.
- G. H. Abbasl, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 22nd March 1974, in II Appeal No. 204 of 1972). -- Art. 168-Limitation, computation of Time for readmission of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution-Runs from date of dismissal and not from date of knowledge of dismissal.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN. C. J.‑This is a petition for Special Leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of Sind & Baluchistan High Court, refusing to re‑admit an appeal for hearing after the same had been dismissed for non‑prosecution. The application for restoration of the appeal itself was barred by limitation, as it had been filed after the lapse of the 30 days' period provided by Article 168 of the Limitation Act. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition is that the limitation should have been computed from the date the petitioner came to know about the dismissal which, according to his statement in his affidavit, is 9‑1‑1974. The learned counsel, engaged to appear for the petitioner, it is said, could not appear on that date as he was busy attending a session of the Senate at Islamabad. He claims that he had also sent a telegram to the Court requesting for an adjournment. The contention that as the learned counsel was attending the session of the Senate, he was entitled to any privilege, is entirely misconceived. It is a personal privilege and this privilege cannot be extended to professional work. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as found by the High Court, did not also intimate to the High Court either by telegram or otherwise that he would not be available at the time of the hearing of the appeal due to his pre‑occupation with the work of the Senate. Again, under Article 168 of the Limitation Act, the time, as rightly held by the High Court, begins to run from the date of the dismissal and not from the date of the knowledge of the dismissal. The High Court, therefore, rightly rejected the contentions advanced by the petitioner. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.