2006 PLP 922 (SCMR)
SECRETARY, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others-respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 922 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | SECRETARY, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others-respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 922 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 922 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 922 (SCMR) (SECRETARY, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others-respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P.No.967-L of 2002).
- Ch. Ghulam Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz-ur-Rehman Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 7, 9, 10 and 100 (in C.P. No.967-L of 2002).
- Muhammad Rashid Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.3543-L of 2001).
- Ch. Ghulam Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.15, 31, 33 and 115 (in C.P. No.3543-L of 2001).
- Gosi Muhammad Din, Ch., Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.175 (in G.P. No.3543-L of 2001).
- Date of hearing: 18th April, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 185(3)
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XIII, R.1-Petition for leave to appeal barred by 143 days
Plea of Secretary, Housing Department for delay was that on account of implementation of devolution of power plan, office of Commissioner at Divisional level was abolished
Such ground was not sufficient for extension of time as Commissioner had said nothing in that behalf
Supreme Court dismissed petition as barred by time and refused leave to appeal.
Art.185(3)
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XIII, R.1
Petition for leave to appeal barred by 8 days
Plea of Secretary, Housing Department was that due to unavoidable circumstances and administrative reasons, file of case could not be handed over to its counsel
Such ground was not a reasonable ground for extension of time
Supreme Court dismissed petition as barred by time and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
By this common judgment, we propose to decide both these petitions involving identical questions of facts and law.
2. C.P. No.967-L of 2002 is barred by 143 days. An application has been made for extension of time under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 on the ground that on account of implementation of the devolution of power plan, the office of the Commissioner at Divisional level was abolished, therefore, the petition could not be filed within the period of limitation.
3. We are afraid, if this could be a ground muchless sufficient ground for extension of time, for Commissioner in matter of filing a petition before this Court with reference to its subject-matter had no say.
4. The connected C.P. No.3543-L of 2001 is barred by 8 days. In the application made for extension of time, the only reason given is that for certain unavoidable circumstances and administrative reasons, the petitioner had not been able to place the file in the office of its counsel well within time which is regretted.
5. In our view, this too is not a ground muchless reasonable ground for extension of time.
6. The applications moved in both the petitions for extension of time are hereby dismissed, consequently the main petitions are also dismissed as barred by time and leave refused. S.A.K. /S-316/SC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.