1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
JAMIL AKHTAR SIDDIQUI Versus SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB; LAHORE
| Citation | 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ |
| Parties | JAMIL AKHTAR SIDDIQUI Versus SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB; LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (JAMIL AKHTAR SIDDIQUI Versus SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB; LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Advocate to Supreme Court instructed by Ch Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th November, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
On appeal from the judgment dated 29‑5‑1995 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 299 of,1995). ‑‑‑‑S.5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal barred by five days‑‑‑Petitioner's plea for condonation of delay was that Service Tribunal having failed to send him certified copies of orders passed, free of cost, he himself applied and got the same within time but he waited for certified copies or orders in question, which were to be sent by the Office of Service Tribunal but having failed to receive the same, he filed appeal and appended therewith certified copies of orders which he had himself obtained‑‑‑Petitioner's counsel, however, did not deny that petition filed in Court was barred by five days‑‑‑Petitioner having obtained certified copy of impugned order on specified d e could and should have filed petition for leave to appeal within time which he failed to do‑‑‑Explanation given by petitioner being not satisfactory delay in filing petition for leave to appeal was not condoned and leave to a peal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
On appeal from the judgment dated 29‑5‑1995 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 299 of,1995). ‑‑‑‑S.5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal barred by five days‑‑‑Petitioner's plea for condonation of delay was that Service Tribunal having failed to send him certified copies of orders passed, free of cost, he himself applied and got the same within time but he waited for certified copies or orders in question, which were to be sent by the Office of Service Tribunal but having failed to receive the same, he filed appeal and appended therewith certified copies of orders which he had himself obtained‑‑‑Petitioner's counsel, however, did not deny that petition filed in Court was barred by five days‑‑‑Petitioner having obtained certified copy of impugned order on specified d e could and should have filed petition for leave to appeal within time which he failed to do‑‑‑Explanation given by petitioner being not satisfactory delay in filing petition for leave to appeal was not condoned and leave to a peal was refused in circumstances. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Advocate to Supreme Court instructed by Ch Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th November, 1995. ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is barred by five days. Learned counsel submits that under the procedure rules of the Service Tribunal, copies f the orders are supplied to the parties free of cost through post but in the instant case, certified copy of the impugned order was not sent by the officer of the Service Tribunal to the petitioner and he himself applied for certified copy of the impugned order of the Service Tribunal which was supplied to him on 26‑6‑1995. Petitioner thereafter, waited for the certified cop of the impugned order, which was to be sent by the office of the Tribunal but that was never received. He then filed the petition in this Court and appended therewith certified copy of the order which he had himself obtained. Learned counsel does not deny that the P petition filed in this Court is barred by five days. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner. He having obtained the certified copy of the impugned order on 26‑6‑1995 could and should have filed the petition for leave to appeal in' this Court within time which he failed to do. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay and dismiss the leave petition was time‑barred. A.A./J‑142/9 Leave refused.