1999 PLP 2262 (SCMR)
Civil Secretariat, Lahore — Petitioner Versus ATTA ULLAH QURESHI and 2 other3 — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2262 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | Civil Secretariat, Lahore — Petitioner Versus ATTA ULLAH QURESHI and 2 other3 — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2262 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2262 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2262 (SCMR) (Civil Secretariat, Lahore — Petitioner Versus ATTA ULLAH QURESHI and 2 other3 — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Israr-ul-Haq Mian, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-4-1997 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in F.A.O. No.247 of 1996).
Art. 185(3)
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXXIII, R.6
Delay in filing petition for leave to appeal
Petition was barred by ninety-four days
Delay was sought to be condoned on ground that petitioner was not aware of date of announcement of judgment of High Court and that petitioner had come to know about that judgment through reliable sources later on
Validity-Cause list of High Court placed on record had indicated that when case was listed for announcement before High Court names of counsel of parties were also published
Vague statement made by petitioner that he came to know about judgment of High Court through reliable sources, could not be accepted especially when alleged reliable source had not been detailed by petitioner in any manner whatsoever
Grounds mentioned in application for condonation of delay did not constitute any valid reason for condonation
Petition was dismissed as barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
The petition is barred by 94 days. An application has been moved by the petitioner under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for condonation of delay. The delay is sought to be condoned on the following grounds:
"(2) That the petitioner came to know through reliable sources about the judgment mentioned above on 28-8-1997. (3) That certified copies of order/judgment, dated 22-4-1997 etc., was applied for on 30-8-1997 which were delivered on 17-9-1997."
2. Mr. Israr-ul-Haq Mian, learned counsel for the respondents/caveators has placed on record Cause List' of the High Court for 30th April, 1997 to indicate that when the case was listed for announcement before Mr. Justice Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh on 30th April, 1997, the names of Mr. Zahid Farani Sheikh, the then A.A.-G. and Mr. Israr-ul-Haq Mian were published. We are, therefore, not persuaded to believe that the petitioner was not aware of the date of announcement of the judgment. Additionally the vague statement made by the petitioner that it came to know through reliable sources about the announcement of the judgment on 28-8-1997, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the alleged reliable sources have not been detailed in any manner whatsoever. It appears that the petitioner is not serious even otherwise to pursue the matter, inasmuch as, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner to argue the case. However, in the interest of justice we have considered the application moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay and found that the grounds mentioned therein do not constitute any valid reason for condonation.
3. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed as barred by time. H.B.T./G-26/S Petition dismissed.