1986 PLP 2434 (MLD)
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik JEHANGIR‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2434 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik JEHANGIR‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2434 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2434 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2434 (MLD) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik JEHANGIR‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Islam Ali Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S.5‑‑Eleven days delay in filing appeal‑ ‑Condonation of‑‑Explanation that eleven days' delay occurred in transmission of sanction for filing of appeal, held, insufficient in absence of statement to show how Legal Department at Headquarters Office stumbled in‑ matter‑‑In absence of plausible explanation of each day's delay in filing appeal, appellate Court's order in refusing condonation of delay was unexceptionable.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S.5‑‑Eleven days delay in filing appeal‑ ‑Condonation of‑‑Explanation that eleven days' delay occurred in transmission of sanction for filing of appeal, held, insufficient in absence of statement to show how Legal Department at Headquarters Office stumbled in‑ matter‑‑In absence of plausible explanation of each day's delay in filing appeal, appellate Court's order in refusing condonation of delay was unexceptionable. Islam Ali Qureshi for Petitioner. Arguments heard. Through this revision petition the order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 5‑3‑1986, dismissing the appeal of the Water and Power Development Authority, the present petitioner, has been assailed. It is contended that the appeal was filed eleven days after the expiry of limitation, as the delay took place at the Headquarter Office of Water and Power Development Authority in granting sanction for the filing of the appeal.
2. With the assistance of .the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the application filed by the Water and Power Development Authority before the appellate Court under section 5 of the Limitation Act and find that nothing has been stated therein to show how the Legal Department at the Headquarter's Office stumbled in the matter. Each day's delay should have been explained in the said application, which has not been done. What only has been stated is that delay occurred in the transmission of the sanction for the preferment of the appeal, which by itself is not sufficient to explain the delay, In these circumstances, the dismissal of the appeal appears to be legal and" proper. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine. H.B.T. Revision petition dismissed.