2003 SCMR 785 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 SCMR 785 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR AHMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 SCMR 785 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 SCMR 785 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 SCMR 785 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Rehman Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 11-3-1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in C. R. No. 1552-D of 1997).
S. 5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Ailment of petitioner
Petition was barred by 9 days and condonation of delay was sought on the ground that the doctor had advised bed rest to the petitioner for one month
Medical Certificate did , not indicate that the petitioner was suffering from such disease on account of which he was not in a position to contact his counsel-- -Petitioner failed to explain that there was no other male member in his family to contact his counsel
Effect-- Delay. in filing of the petition was not condoned
Petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition for leave to appeal has .been filed against the judgment dated 11th March, 1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby civil revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Instant petition is barred by 9 days. Alongwith this petition application has been filed seeking condonation of delay on the ground that petitioner was indisposed and advised. complete bed rest by the doctor for one month w.e.f. 30th April, 1999 to 28th May, 1999. Perusal of the certificate does not indicate that the petitioner was suffering from such disease on account of which he was not in a position to contact his counsel. Moreover, it has not been explained that besides the petitioner, there was no other male member in his family to contact his counsel. Thus, we are of the opinion that the delay in filing of petition is not condonable. As such petition is dismissed being barred by time. Q.M.H./M-429/SC Petition dismissed