1994 PLP 2244 (SCMR)
Mst. ALLAH RAKHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IRSHAD BIBI‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2244 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar |
| Parties | Mst. ALLAH RAKHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IRSHAD BIBI‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2244 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 2244 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2244 (SCMR) (Mst. ALLAH RAKHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IRSHAD BIBI‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Amjad Perwaiz, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th January, 1 4.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was barred by 377 days‑‑‑Petitioner neither filing application for condonation of delay nor satisfactory explanation for such delay was given‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 907‑L of 1992, decided on 11th January, 1994. ‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was barred by 377 days‑‑‑Petitioner neither filing application for condonation of delay nor satisfactory explanation for such delay was given‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Malik Amjad Perwaiz, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th January, 1
4. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑ ‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment and decree dated 17‑6 1991, of the Lahore High Court, whereby Civil Revision No. 1093/1991, w dismissed in limine.
2. As per office report, this petition is barred by 377 days. The petitioner has neither filed application for condonation of delay nor the learned counsel appearing on her behalf could give sati factory explanation therefore. This petition is, therefore, dismissed being barred by time. A.A./A‑1174/S Petition dismissed.