P L D 1957 (W (PLP)
PUNJAB PROVINCE‑Defendant‑Appellant Versus M. NURULLAH‑Plaintiff — ‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PUNJAB PROVINCE‑Defendant‑Appellant Versus M. NURULLAH‑Plaintiff — ‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1957 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 (W (PLP) (PUNJAB PROVINCE‑Defendant‑Appellant Versus M. NURULLAH‑Plaintiff — ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. M. Naseem for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12‑Application stating wrong date of judgment, copy of which was applied for‑Period of time allowed under S. 12 would only begin from the day mistake was corrected.
Judgment & Decree
AKHLAQUE HUSAIN, J.‑
This is an appeal against the order and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, dismissing the defendant's appeal before him as barred by time. The judgment of the trial Court was delivered on the 24th of August 1955 but an application for its copy was put in on behalf of the appellant two days before, i.e.. on the 22nd of August 1955. asking for a copy of a judgment dated the 19th of August 19:
5. It was only on the 30th of August that the application was corrected by giving the date of the judgment as the 24th of August. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that if his client were to be allowed only the period between the 30th of August 1955 and the 11th of October 1955 the date on which the copy was ready and delivered to his client, the last date for filing the appeal would be the 5th of November 1955 and not the 10th of November on which it was actually filed. Learned counsel, however, contends that as he had already made the application for copy on the 22nd of August the time between the 24th of August, when the judgment was actually delivered, and the 30th of August 1955, should also be allowed as time requisite for obtaining copies under section 12 of the Limitation Act. This contention could not be accepted for the obvious reason that the application made on the 22nd of August 1955 was not at all an application asking for a copy of the judgment of the 24th of August. ‑ The Court had heard the arguments on the 19th and had fixed the 24th for the delivery of the judgment. These facts are apparent from the order sheet and must have, or ought to have, been known to the pairokars of the appellant. If they were negligent in not supplying until the 30th of August the most material particular required in such an application and without which the preparation of a copy could not have been undertaken the appellant must suffer for their negligence. The period between the 24th and the 30th of August can, by no stretch of reason, be considered as time requisite for obtaining copies. There is no application under section 5, Limitation Act, and the appellant's learned counsel has not been able to furnish any explanation as to why the appeal was not filed for a whole month after the copies had been obtained by his client. The appeal is dismissed with costs. A.H. Appeal dismissed.