1988 PLP 1943 (SCMR)
RAB NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WAPDA — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1943 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ |
| Parties | RAB NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WAPDA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1943 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1943 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1943 (SCMR) (RAB NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WAPDA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasim Jaffri Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th June, 1988.
- M. Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasim Jaffri Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 5-11-1986 passed in Appeal No.107-R of 1985). --Ss.5 & 14--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)--Petition for leave to appeal--Appeal dismissed by Service Tribunal as barred by time--Petitioner contended that time spent by petitioner in seeking remedy before forums provided by Labour Laws and that spent in High Court regarding pendency of a writ petition had to be excluded under S.14 of Limitation Act, and, in any case it was for treatment under S.5 read with S.14 thereof and not otherwise--Leave to appeal granted to consider the contention and also the question whether declaration of law or clarification of a point of law by Supreme Court operated as a notice about state of law of such type that ignorance about it or failure to act on it, enhanced bar of limitation.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Petitioner's service appeal having been dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal, leave to appeal has been sought on the ground that the appeal was not liable to be dismissed as time‑barred. The plea taken before and rejected by the Tribunal was that the time spent by the petitioner in seeking remedy before the forums provided by the Labour Laws and that spent in the High Court regarding the pendency of a writ petition had to be excluded u/s 141 of the Limitation Act; and, in any case it was a case for treatment u/s 5 read with Section 14, thereof and not otherwise. This argument inter alia has also been pressed before us. It needs examination. Besides, it also needs examination whether the declaration of law or clarification of a point of law, by this Court operates as a notice about the state of law of such type that ignorance about it or failure to act on it, enhances the bar of Limitation Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. To be heard with similar other cases, on the present record with direction for filing of all necessary documents M . Y . H . /R‑60/ S Leave to appeal granted.