2001 SCMR 2016 (PLP)
PAKISTAN COAST GUARDS‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAREEF AHMED ‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 SCMR 2016 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, C.J. and Nasir Aslam Zahid, J |
| Parties | PAKISTAN COAST GUARDS‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAREEF AHMED ‑‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 SCMR 2016 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 SCMR 2016 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, C.J. and Nasir Aslam Zahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 SCMR 2016 (PLP) (PAKISTAN COAST GUARDS‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAREEF AHMED ‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th.December, 1997.
- 3. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the High Court should not have dismissed the aforesaid High Court Appeal in limine on the ground of limitation as the departmental formalities take longer period before an appeal can be filed against a judgment decree.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 11‑4‑1997 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, passed in High Court‑Appeal No.34 of 1997). . ‑‑‑‑S.1‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for damages‑‑ Limitation‑‑‑Inordinate delay in filing appeal‑‑‑Question of condonation of delay‑‑‑Gross negligence‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Suit was decreed by High Court and defendant/petitioner filed High Court appeal after nearly one year and nine months from the prescribed period of thirty days‑‑‑Division Bench of High Court dismissed the appeal on ground of limitation‑‑‑Defendant/petitioner had contended that appeal should not have been dismissed in limine on ground of limitation as the departmental formalities had taken longer period before filing the said appeal‑‑‑Contention was repelled as ground taken by petitioner was found insufficient by Supreme Court‑‑‑Even otherwise gross negligence was apparent on the part of the petitioner‑Department as High Court appeal was filed after about one and a half years from obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment‑‑‑High Court having exercised discretion properly, leave to appeal was refused. Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Rais Pir Ahmed Khan 1981 SCMR 37 and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 5 others v. Jamaluddin and others 1996 SCMR 727 ref.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order, dated 11‑4‑1997 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh in High Court Appeal No.34 of 1997, filed by the petitioner against the judgment/decree dated 2‑4‑1995 of a learned Single Judge of same High Court in Suit No.308 of 1987 for the recovery of damages decreeing the above suit to the extent of Rs.2,72,000 with 14% interest from the date of decree to the date of actual payment with costs, dismissing the same in limine.
2. The brief facts are that the respondent filed the afore‑mentioned suit for the recovery of Rs.25,00,000 on account of injuries sustained by him because of rash and negligent driving of a water tanker bearing registration No. GP 78 belonging to the petitioner while he was crossing road at Old Numaish. The above suit was resisted inasmuch as written statement was filed by the petitioner. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh framed as many as five Issues. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, he decreed the suit partly in the above terms. The petitioner instead of filing aforesaid High Court appeal within 30 days plus the time spent in obtaining certificate copies of the above judgment and decree, filed the same on 26‑1‑1997 i.e. after nearly one year and none months. The learned Division Bench dismissed the afore mentioned High Court appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. The petitioner, has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the High Court should not have dismissed the aforesaid High Court Appeal in limine on the ground of limitation as the departmental formalities take longer period before an appeal can be filed against a judgment decree.
4. It may be stated that this ground has been repeatedly found insufficient by this Court inter alia in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rais Pir Ahmed Khan (1981 SCMR 37) and in the case of Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affiars, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 5 others v. Jamaluddin and others (1996 SCMR 727 at page 730).
5. Even otherwise we find that there was gross negligence on the part of the department inasmuch as certified copy of the judgment/decree was obtained in July, 1995, whereas the afore‑mentioned High Court Appeal was filed on 21‑1‑1997 i.e. after expiry of nearly one year and seven months. In this view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment. The learned Judges of the Division Bench have exercised discretion property in not overlooking the delay of the above period. Leave is refused. H.B.T./P‑30/S Petition dismissed.