1987 PLP 313 (SCMR)
ABDUL KHALIQ CHAUDHRY, SUB‑ENGINEER‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SARGODHA and others Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 313 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL KHALIQ CHAUDHRY, SUB‑ENGINEER‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SARGODHA and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 313 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 313 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 313 (SCMR) (ABDUL KHALIQ CHAUDHRY, SUB‑ENGINEER‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SARGODHA and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.W. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 21‑7‑1983 in Case No. 92/85 of 1983). ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908) Ss. 5 & 12‑‑Limitation‑ Condonation of delay‑‑Petitioner failing to collect certified copy of impugned judgment for 15 days‑‑No case made out for condo nation of delay‑‑Petition dismissed as time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal is barred by time. The Tribunal announced its decision on 21‑7‑1983. This petition was filed on 10‑10‑1983, that is, after 81 days. The prescribed period for filing the petition is 60 days. Thus, there is a delay of 21 days which the petitioner is required to explain. He states that the Tribunal sent information to him about its order by post, which he received on 30‑7‑1983. He applied for a copy of the order on 1‑8‑1983. It was delivered to him on 15‑8‑1983. The learned counsel states that if the petitioner is given allowance for the time the Tribunal took in intimating its order to him and that which he spent in obtaining a copy thereof, which in all comes to 25 days, his petition will be within time.
2. So far as the period between the announcement of the order and its intimation to the petitioner is concerned, he is clearly entitled to its credit in computing limitation. It comes to 10 days. As regards the period which elapsed between the making of an application for the supply of copy and the delivery of the copy the position is different. It will appear from the stamp affixed on the certified copy by the copying branch of the Tribunal that the copy was applied for on 1‑8‑1983 and it was ready for delivery on the same day. There is no satisfactory explanation why the petitioner did not care to collect it on the same or the following day but instead waited for 15 days for the purpose. All that the learned counsel could say in this regard is that the copying branch had not intimated to him the day when the copy would be ready for delivery. We called the Registrar and the clerk concerned from the Tribunal. The Registrar stated that the copies were prepared on the very day they were applied for and the applicants were informed accordingly. That being the practice in the Tribunal, the petitioner showed carelessness in not collecting the copy for 15 days. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had approached the Tribunal for obtaining the copy at any time between 1‑8‑1983 and 15‑8‑1983. In the circumstances no case for condo nation of delay has been made out. We would accordingly dismiss this petition as barred by time. M. I. Petition dismissed.