1973 PLP 499 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD FEROZE‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN BUX AHD ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1973 PLP 499 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Muhammad Gul, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FEROZE‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN BUX AHD ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 499 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 499 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Muhammad Gul, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 499 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD FEROZE‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN BUX AHD ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Azizuddin Ahmad, Advocate instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th June 1973.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, made on 1‑11‑1971, in L. P. A. No. 280 of 1966). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1972), Art. 186 and Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑Condonation of delay‑Nothing in condonation application to support statement as to physical disabilities, if any, of petitioner or as to why his attorney was unable to obtain in formation regarding dismissal of appeal‑Nothing also said as to why after dismissal of appeal petitioner waited for nearly 1 months to apply for copies of order of dismissal of appeal and then again for 10 days after obtaining copies‑Delay not condoned‑Leave to appeal refused. (b) Letters Patent (Lahore), cl. 10 & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 23‑District Judge allowing appeal against judgment and decree dismissing suit, remanding case and directing other issues arising in suit to be decided‑ Order of District Judge‑Not order sirnpliciter for remand of case but one allowing appeal‑Appeal taken from judgment in its entirety‑A second appeal‑Certificate under cl. 10 of Letters Patent, held, necessary for preferment of Letters Patent appeal in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This petition is barred by 199 days and the explanation given for this delay is that the petitioner, being a disabled person living in a far flung village of district Jhelum, entrusted the task of the pursuit of V the case to his brother Havaldar Major Muhammad Hayat who was unfortunately placed on active duty in connection with the December 1971‑War. The latter learnt about the dismissal of the L. P. A. in March 1972 and informed the petitioner, whereupon he came to Lahore and filed an application for the review of the order in the L. P. A. But even this was dismissed on the 28th of April 1972. He did not apply for the certified copies of the orders of the High Court even after this until the 17th of June 1972. The certified copies were delivered to him on the 7th of July 1972 but the petition was filed only on the 17th of July 1972. Apart from the ipse dixit of the petitioner, in his condonation application there is nothing else to support the statements made therein as to the physical disabilities, if any, of the petitioner or as to why his brother Havaldar Major Mohammad Hayat was unable until March 1972 to obtain information about the fate of the L. P. A. Again, nothing has been said as to why after the L. P. A. was dismissed the petitioner waited for nearly a month‑and‑a‑half to apply for the copies of the orders of the High Court and then again for ten days after obtaining the copies for filing of the petition for special leave to appeal. On merits also we are not satisfied that any ground for interference is made out. The L. P. A. was dismissed as being incompetent for want of a certificate under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The learned counsel contends that this certificate was not necessary as the appeal before the High Court being from an order of remand by the District Judge was a first appeal and not a second appeal. What had happened in this case was that the District Judge at Jhelum, in an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge dismissing a suit for possession, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Court and then under Order XLI, rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure remanded the case back with a direction that the other issues arising in the suit be decided. This was not an order simpliciter for the remand of the case, but it was an order allowing the appeal and the second appeal was taken from the judgment in its entirety. Therefore, the Division Bench in the High Court was right in taking the view that under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent a certificate was necessary for the preferment of the Letters Patent Appeal. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed both as being barred by limitation and also on merits. Leave refused.