1989 PLP 1488 (SCMR)
S.M. IQBAL Petitioner Versus S.M. AZIM and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1488 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan,JJ |
| Parties | S.M. IQBAL Petitioner Versus S.M. AZIM and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Arbitration‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1488 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1488 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan,JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1488 (SCMR) (S.M. IQBAL Petitioner Versus S.M. AZIM and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazir Ahmad Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. dated 8‑10‑1983 in C.R. 1473‑D of 1983).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Trial Court made award rule of the Court on 31‑1‑1978‑‑Petitioner's appeal was filed on 9‑7‑1978‑‑Petitioner's application for condonation of delay tiled many years later, was dismissed and so was his appeal‑‑Contention of petitioner that the award having been made after the prescribed time, was a nullity, and therefore, appeal should, despite the bar of limitation, have been treated as competent‑‑Petitioner had not commented on the point regarding the extension of time for the award, and it was not a case in which even if the award was found defective, it could have been treated as a nullity‑ Petitioner having failed to justify interference by Supreme Court with the treatment of the question by the High Court in that behalf, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner's Civil Revision. It had arisen out of the dismissal by the District Court of the petitioner's appeal in arbitration matter, as time‑barred. The trial Court made an award a rule of the Court on 31‑1‑1978. The petitioner's appeal filed on 9‑7‑1978 being time‑barred, his application for condonation of delay filed many years later, was dismissed, and so was his appeal dismissed as time‑barred. Learned counsel contended that the award having been made after the prescribed time, was a nullity. Therefore, the appeal should despite the bar of limitation have been treated as competent. We do not agree with him. Firstly, the learned counsel has not commented on the point regarding the extension of time for the award; and secondly, it was not such a case in which even if the award would have been found defective, it could have been treated as a nullity. The A circumstances of the case did not justify it. Regarding the appeal being badly barred by time, the learned counsel remained unable to justify interference by this Court with the treatment of this question by the High Court in that behalf. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.B.A./S‑282/S Leave refused.