1986 PLP 1359 (SCMR)
BAKHOO — Petitioner Versus Mst. KHADIJA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1359 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afza1 Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | BAKHOO — Petitioner Versus Mst. KHADIJA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1359 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1359 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afza1 Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1359 (SCMR) (BAKHOO — Petitioner Versus Mst. KHADIJA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Muhammad Sabir, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- M. Ismail Quraishi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th March, 1986.
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Muhammad Sabir, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- M. Ismail Quraishi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8-1-1979 in Regular Second Appeal No. 203 of 1978).
Art. 183(3)--Second appeal--Petition for leave to appeal against order of High Court dismissing second appeal of petitioner as time-barred--High Court while dismissing appeal taking note of ground of illness mentioned in application for condonation of delay and coming to conclusion that there was no reliable material to hold that petitioner was so incapacitated as to be unable to file an appeal--Order passed by High Court in its discretion, when rejecting application under S. 5 of Limitation Act, supported by sound reasons, held, was unexceptionable--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
M. Ismail Quraishi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th March, 1986. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 8‑1‑1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Regular Second Appeal filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as time‑barred.
2. It is not denied that the appeal was barred by 127 days but the learned counsel has contended that the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act should have been allowed.
3. The learned Judge in the High Court took note of ground of the illness taken in the application for condonation of delay and came to the conclusion that there was no reliable material to hold that the petitioner was so incapacitated as to be unable to file an appeal. Accordingly, the delay was not condoned and application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, was dismissed.
4. The order passed by the High Court in its discretion when rejecting the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is supported by sound reasons and is thus unexceptionable. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.Y.H Leave refused.