2001 SCMR 1429 (PLP)
RAEES AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BDUL SHAFIQ and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 SCMR 1429 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, |
| Parties | RAEES AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BDUL SHAFIQ and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 SCMR 1429 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 SCMR 1429 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 SCMR 1429 (PLP) (RAEES AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BDUL SHAFIQ and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.A. Wahab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6.
- Date of hearing: 25th October, 2000.
- 2. It is admitted before us that the appeal was time‑barred. Mr. K.W. Wahab; learned Advocate‑on‑Record, for the petitioner argued that objection regarding limitation was neither raised by the office at the time when appeal was presented nor at any subsequent stage and that said objection was only raised on 7‑3‑2000 when the appeal was fixed for regular hearing. He also submits that immediately thereafter, learned counsel offered to file an application, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, but so was not allowed with an observation that "Obviously, the action was just to fill up the gap. Had there been any cogent reason for the delay in filing the appeal, the appellant would have filed the application for condonation of delay alongwith the appeal, which was filed in 1996".
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 13‑5‑2000 passed in H.C.A. No. 179 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑S.5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑‑Time‑barred appeal‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Where the delay was not satisfactorily explained, the petition was dismissed without saying anything about the merits‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI,‑J.‑‑‑Petitioner,, Races Ahmed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13‑5‑2000, of a learned D.B. High Court of Sindh, whereby H.C.A. No. 179 of 1996 was dismissed on the ground of limitation and the judgment and decree dated 16‑9‑1996 passed by learned Single Judge, in Administrative Suit No.444 of 1980, were affirmed.
2. It is admitted before us that the appeal was time‑barred. Mr. K.W. Wahab; learned Advocate‑on‑Record, for the petitioner argued that objection regarding limitation was neither raised by the office at the time when appeal was presented nor at any subsequent stage and that said objection was only raised on 7‑3‑2000 when the appeal was fixed for regular hearing. He also submits that immediately thereafter, learned counsel offered to file an application, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, but so was not allowed with an observation that "Obviously, the action was just to fill up the gap. Had there been any cogent reason for the delay in filing the appeal, the appellant would have filed the application for condonation of delay alongwith the appeal, which was filed in 1996".
3. Thus it is clear that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. Nothing is said about the merits of the case.
4. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./R‑25/S Petition dismissed