P D 1992 Lahore 275 (PLP)
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ‑Appellant Versus Messrs NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION TD ‑Respondent
| Citation | P D 1992 Lahore 275 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ‑Appellant Versus Messrs NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION TD ‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P D 1992 Lahore 275 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P D 1992 Lahore 275 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P D 1992 Lahore 275 (PLP) (LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ‑Appellant Versus Messrs NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION TD ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A.R. Arshad for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑
0. XLIII, R.1 ‑‑‑ Appeal against order was preferred after about two years and same was barred by time ‑‑‑ No application for condonation of delay was made by appellant ‑‑‑ Prayer for condonation of delay had not even been in corporated in memorandum of appeal or elsewhere ‑‑‑ Counsel filing appeal did not attend to jurisdictional value fixed for the case before Trial Court and filed appeal in wrong Court initially ‑‑‑ Counsel's such conduct was highly negligent and careless ‑‑‑ Anything which was not done with due care and caution could not be treated as bona fide act ‑‑‑ Appeal deserved to be dismissed on ground of ‑limitation and was dismissed for being time barred.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal has arisen out of an arbitration case. After the order under challenge wag passed in that case by a Civil Judge, appeal was filed by the appellant Lahore Development Authority, against the said order, before an Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge found that he had no jurisdiction to bear the appeal inasmuch as its value for the purpose of jurisdiction, was Rs.1,90,05,771 which exceeded the pecuniary limits ‑of his' jurisdiction, namely, Rs.2,00,
000. He, therefore, directed that the memorandum of appeal be returned. for presentation before proper forum. Then, the appeal in hand was filed before this Court.
2. The order assailed herein was made by the learned Civil Judge on 29th June, 1988 but appeal against that order was filed before this Court on 23rd April, 1990. In other words, this appeal was preferred after about two years. It is., therefore, badly time-barred. ‑
3. Strangely enough, no application for condonation of delay has been made by the appellant. Prayer in this regard has not even been incorporated in the memorandum of appeal or elsewhere. It was verbally submitted by learned counsel that it was through bona fide mistake that the appeal was first taken to the learned Additional District Judge. It was conceded by him that the jurisdictional value fixed for the case before the learned Civil Judge was Rs.1,90,05,
771. It was, therefore, obvious that the same valuation was to be fixed for the purpose of appeal. If the counsel filing the appeal did not care to attend to this, aspect of the matter, he was highly negligent and careless. Anything which is not done with due care and caution cannot be treated as a bona fide act. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the learned counsel that a bona fide mistake has been committed in riling appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. As stated earlier, no application was made for condonation of delay. Therefore, looked from any angle, this appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
4. The appeal in band is, accordingly, dismissed in limine for being time‑, barred, without expressing any opinion on the merits thereof. A.A./L‑15/L Appeal dismissed.