2008 PLP 703 (SCMR)
AYUB through L.Rs. and others — Petitioners Versus NISAR AHMED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 703 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Hamid Ali Mirza and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | AYUB through L.Rs. and others — Petitioners Versus NISAR AHMED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 703 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 703 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Hamid Ali Mirza and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 703 (SCMR) (AYUB through L.Rs. and others — Petitioners Versus NISAR AHMED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Contention of counsel for petitioners was that second Appellate Court as well as two courts below having not considered the evidence in proper perspective, impugned judgment could not be sustained---Contention was repelled for the reason that petition was barred by 33 days---Counsel attempted to explain the delay by stating that no date of impugned judgment having been mentioned to facilitate computing period of limitation, there would be no question that petition was barred by time---On a question whether judgment was announced or after hearing the judgment was reserved or on a later date it was announced, counsel had no answer to give---Counsel being totally helpless could not show that petition was within time---No application for condonation of delay had been moved by counsel for petitioners---Concurrent findings of fact could not be interfered with in absence of any legal or factual infirmity with said findings.
- Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th September, 2007.
Judgment & Decree
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.
This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 30-11-2006 in Civil Appeal No.5 of 1979 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur, whereby the said appeal was dismissed maintaining the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in the memo. of petition as well as in the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that 2nd Appellate Court as well as two Courts below have not considered the evidence in proper perspective of law, therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
5. We do not find merit and substance in the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, firstly for the reason that this petition is barred by 33 days as reported by the office. Learned counsel attempted to explain the delay by stating that no date of impugned judgment was mentioned to facilitate computing period of limitation, therefore, there would be no question that the petition was barred by time. On a question whether the judgment was announced or after hearing the judgment was reserved and on a later date it was announced, learned counsel had no answer to give. He was totally helpless and could not show that the petition was within time. Having failed to satisfy the Court on the above questions, we find that this petition is barred by time. No application for condonation of delay has been moved by learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Besides above, it may also be observed that there are concurrent findings of fact with regard to Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad made by the petitioners which have been answered in the affirmative and we do not find any legal or factual infirmity with the said findings, hence no interference is called for.
7. In view of above circumstances, we find no ground to grant leave to appeal in this matter which is declined and the petition is dismissed. H.B.T./A-1/SC Leave declined.