1990 PLP 1033 (SCMR)
SULTAN ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. DILDAR BEGUM and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1033 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ |
| Parties | SULTAN ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. DILDAR BEGUM and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution or Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1033 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution or Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1033 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1033 (SCMR) (SULTAN ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. DILDAR BEGUM and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Latif Khoso and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M. Khalid Farooqi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th January, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 10‑5‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No. 125 of 1988). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal ‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑‑Sufficient cause‑‑ Petition was barred by 60 days and petitioner seeking condonation of delay, contended that one of the petitioners was ill and was advised rest by Doctor‑‑ Other petitioners, who were brothers of co‑petitioner and were appellants before High Court, did not take any step to challenge order in time‑‑‑No ground for condonation of delay, thus existed‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
M. Khalid Farooqi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th January, 1990. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑In this petition for leave to appeal, the petitioners seek enhancement of compensation for the improvements on the land in dispute subject‑matter of a pre‑emption suit.
2. The petitioners challenged the fixation on the basis of the report of the Locat Commissioner by the trial Court vide order dated 2.1‑5‑1986. Their appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Vehari, vide judgment/decree dated 21‑6‑1988, and Second Appeal by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 10‑5‑1989.
3. The petition is barred by 60 days. The ground given in the application for condonation of delay and urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Sultan Ali, petitioner was ill and has been advised rest. He filed medical certificates to that effect. 'These show that he was an outdoor patient. Besides the aforesaid Sultan Ali, his brother Ghulam and another Ghuiam Shabbir, who were the appellants before the High Court, were also there and they took no step to challenge the order in time.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we find no good ground for condonation of delay.
5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as barred by time. H.B.T./S‑507/S. Petition dismissed.