2007 PLP 1664 (YLR)
H./Dr. MASHOOD ASLAM DAR — Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1664 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakoor Paracha and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ |
| Parties | H./Dr. MASHOOD ASLAM DAR — Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1664 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1664 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakoor Paracha and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1664 (YLR) (H./Dr. MASHOOD ASLAM DAR — Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Tanveer Chaudhry for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Delay, condonation of--Sufficient cause
Appeal was barred by time, even if time consumed for obtaining the copy of' impugned judgment was excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing appeal
Only ground taken in. application for condonation of delay was that appellant having good prima facie case on merits, limitation should not be hurdle in his way
Such could hardly be termed and taken as "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908
Appellant having failed to make out "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, his application for condonation of delay, was dismissed
Appeal could not proceed further same having been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the law.
Judgment & Decree
The appellant, through the instant appeal under section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, has called in question consolidated judgment dated 9-2-2004 whereby the learned Single Judge in Chamber also dismissed petitioner's constitutional Petition (Writ Petition No.2967 of 2001).
2. Appeal is, admittedly, barred by time, therefore, the appellant has filed the application (C.M. No.2 of 2004) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The impugned judgment was passed on 9-2-2004; the appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment on 11-2-2004; which was completed and delivered to the appellant on 20-2-2004, while the present appeal was filed on 11-4-2004. Even if time consumed for obtaining the copy of the impugned judgment is excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal, the same is still barred by time. This fact has duly been acknowledged by the appellant. The only Ground taken in the application for condonation of delay, as canvassed by the learned counsel, is that "the petitioner has good prima facie case on merits, therefore, limitation is not hurdle in this way". This can hardly, be termed and taken as "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is evident from the record that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any sufficient reason, within the parameters of law, for not filing the appeal within the, limitation period. The appellant has failed to make out "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, thus, the application in hand is dismissed.
3. With the dismissal of the aforenoted application, the appeal is barred by time, thus, we are constrained to hold that the appeal cannot proceed further having been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the law. In view whereof, the appeal stands dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-216/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.