2006 PLP 122 (YLR)
TAHIR SAEED EFFENDI — Appellant Versus CHAIRMAN, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 122 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | TAHIR SAEED EFFENDI — Appellant Versus CHAIRMAN, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 122 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 122 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 122 (YLR) (TAHIR SAEED EFFENDI — Appellant Versus CHAIRMAN, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anjum Ghani Khan for Appellant.
- Agha Faquir Muhammad for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
- Jawed Asghar for Respondent No.4.
- We have heard Mr. Anjum Ghani Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Agha Faquir Muhammad, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Jawed Asghar, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 100
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Appeal was not filed before High Court within period of limitation under the impression that review application against impugned order was competent and after dismissal of review application, appeal was not filed as appellant was waiting for result of condonation application
Appellant had no explanation as to why appeal was not filed within a day or two after receiving the copy of impugned order
Effect
Wrong impression entertained by any person could not provide sufficient justification for condonation of delay
Law of Limitation was very strict and person seeking condonation of delay had to explain for each day, failing which condonation would not be allowed
No reasonable explanation was given for non-filing of appeal within period of limitation, particularly for delay in filing appeal after dismissal of review application
Application for condonation of delay and appeal, was dismissed on point of limitation.
Judgment & Decree
1. Through this application the appellant seeks condonation of 106 days. The appeal has been filed after 106 days of expiry of period of limitation. We have heard Mr. Anjum Ghani Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Agha Faquir Muhammad, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Jawed Asghar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Mr. Anjum Ghani Khan has submitted that after passing of impugned order on 27-12-2002, the appellant filed a review application before the respondent No.2 on 17-2-2003, which was dismissed on 1-4-2004 for the reason that the review was not competent in law. He has further submitted that an appeal was filed by Mr. Akhtar Ali Khan, one of the Directors, who had not filed appeal against the order of Registrar, but had instead opted to pay the aggregate penalty of Rs.30,000, subsequently filed a time-barred appeal before the respondent No.2 and the delay was condoned. The delay in the case of Mr. Akhtar Ali Khan was condoned and appeal was admitted on 17-4-2003, copy whereof was received by the appellant on 19-4-2003 and thereafter this appeal was filed on 3-5-2003. Mr. Anjum Ghani Khan has submitted that in the first instance the appeal was not filed before this Court within the period of limitation under the impression that review application was competent and after dismissal of review application on 1-4-2003 the appeal was still not filed as the appellant was waiting for the result of condonation application submitted by Mr. Akhtar Ali Khan before respondent No.2. He has no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed within a day or two after receiving the copy of order in the case of Mr. Akhtar Ali Khan. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that the wrong impressions entertained by any person cannot provide sufficient justification for the condonation of delay. The Law of Limitation is very strict and there is plethora of rulings on the point that a person seeking condonation of delay has to explain for each day, failing which the condonation shall not be allowed. In the present case there is no reasonable explanation for non-filing of the appeal within the period of limitation and particularly for the delay in filing the appeal after dismissal of review application. The application is without substance, which stands dismissed accordingly. 2 and
3. Consequent to the dismissal of application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appeal along with the listed application stands dismissed on the point of limitation. H.B.T./T-35/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.