1968 SCMR 78 (PLP)
RAHIM BUX-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 78 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RAHIM BUX-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 78 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 78 (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: 1968 SCMR 78 (PLP) (RAHIM BUX-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Shaukat Ali Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Khalil-ur-Rehman Chaudhry, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 3rd March 1967, in Letters Patent Appeal No, 1309 of 1966). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)-Petition for Special Leave to Appeal barred by time-Valuable right thus vesting in opposite-party cannot be put in, jeopardy on mere assertion that Copying Branch of High Court had repeatedly given incorrect information about preparation of copy- Delay not condoned Supreme Court .Rules, 1956, O, XIII, r. I.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUE ALI, J.-This petition in a civil matter is barred by 156 days. Application for obtaining copy of the judgment of the High Court was made on 28-3-1967. The copy was made ready on 4-4-1967, but the clerk of the petitioner's counsel obtained delivery on 7-9-1967. It is said that the clerk of the petitioner's counsel who bad applied for the copy was given incorrect information by the Copying Branch that the copy was not ready until 7-9-1967. The receipt on which endorsements was allegedly made by the clerk concerned from time to time that the copy was not yet ready is stated to have been handed back to the clerk concerned and since then misplaced in the Copying Branch. We are not satisfied with the explanation given for condona tion of delay. Valuable rights have vested in the opposite-party which cannot be put in jeopardy on the mere assertion that. Copying Branch had repeatedly given incorrect information to the clerk of the petitioner's counsel about the preparation of the copy. The petition is in the circumstances dismissed as barred / by time. Petition dismissed.