1998 PLP 638 (SCMR)
KHURSHID ALAM and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 638 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHURSHID ALAM and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 638 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 638 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 638 (SCMR) (KHURSHID ALAM and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th January, 1998
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 31‑7‑1997 of the Lahore High Court passed in I.‑C. A. No. 139 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑S. 114 & O.XLVII, R. 1‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 14‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Dismissal of petitioner's Constitutional petition‑‑‑Petitioner sought review of such judgment which was rejected by the High Court‑‑‑Petitioner's Intra‑Court Appeal against original judgment of High Court was dismissed as barred by time‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Review application remained pending for some time and after hearing parties was dismissed‑‑‑Direction was, however, issued to concerned officer to decide disputed matter after giving full opportunity to all concerned parties‑‑‑Question for determination would be whether there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing Intra‑Court Appeal finder S. 5, Limitation Act, 1908, even if no benefit under S. 14 of the Limitation Act as per its own terms could be given to petitioners‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was granted in circumstances. Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Sharif through Legal Hiers PLD 1995 SC 472. ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment, dated 31st July, 1997 of the Lahore High Court passed in Intra‑Court Appeal No.139 of 1997 through which the said appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed as barred by time.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition shortly stated are that the petitioners filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed through judgment, dated 17th November, 1996, The petitioners filed an application seeking review of the said judgment which was admitted through order, dated 8th December, 1996 and notice issued. The review application was finally rejected through order, dated 17th March, 1997 anq the case was remitted to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Power Department, Sargodha for decision of the issue after giving full opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
3. The petitioners filed Intra‑Court Appeal No.139 of 1997 to challenge the original judgment, dated 17th November, 1996 passed in the writ petition which has been dismissed as barred by time. It was held that the time spent for the prosecution of the review application could not be excluded while computing the limitation for filing the appeal. Reliance was placed on a case reported as Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Shairf through Legal Heirs PLD 1995 SC 472.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the peculiar circumstances of this case the question of condonation of delay in filing the Intra‑Court Appeal under section 5 of the Limitation Act should have been considered and decided and since no application of mind has been made to this aspect of the case, therefore, the High Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the law.
5. The review application was admitted by the learned Single Judge against the original judgment, dated 17th November, 1996 which remained pending till 17th Mach, 1997 on which date alter hearing the parties, the same was dismissed and direction issued to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Power Department, Sargodha to decide the issue after giving full opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. therefore, the question arose whether these were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing the Intra‑Court Appeal under section 5 of the Limitation Act even if no benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act as per its own terms could be given to the petitioners. Leave is granted to consider this question.
6. In the meantime, interim order, dated 13th November, 1997 shall continue subject to notice for an early date. A.A./K‑6/S Leave granted,