1988 PLP 230 (SCMR)
Mst. BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus NAZIR ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 230 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus NAZIR ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 230 (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 230 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 230 (SCMR) (Mst. BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus NAZIR ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Muhammad Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 27th October, 1987 in Review Application No.14-C of 1985).
S.5--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Petition for leave to appeal time-barred by 2 years 3 months and 27 days--No good ground advanced for condonation of delay--Petition dismissed as barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition is two years 3 months and 27 days barred by time so far as the original order passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in RSA No.284 of 1965 is concerned. That order was passed on 1st June, 1985. The review against that order lay. The petitioner filed review petition against that order before that very learned Judge who had dismissed the RSA. The review petition was likewise dismissed on 27th October, 1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that his petition for leave to appeal was within time so far as the order of the High Court dated 27th October, 1987 dismissing his review petition was concerned. We pointed out to him that he in fact was challenging the earlier order of the High Court in R.S.A. dated 1st June, 1985 and as the period is to be counted from the date of that order, the petition is barred by time. He then sought the condonation of delay. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, but in our considered opinion no good ground has been advanced for the condonation of delay. In that view of the matter this petition dismissed as barred by time. S.Q./B.-23/S Petition dismissed