1996 PLP 1508 (SCMR)
MAHMOOD and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1508 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Fazal Karim and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MAHMOOD and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1508 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1508 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Fazal Karim and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1508 (SCMR) (MAHMOOD and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑O.XLI, R.19‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Dismissal of appeal in default‑‑‑Application for restoration of appeal ‑‑‑Dismissal‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether High Court was justified in rejecting application for restoration in view of the fact that no personal notice was sent to appellants for the date of hearing.
- ‑‑‑‑O.XLI, R.19‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Appeal in question had been filed at Rawalpindi Bench of the High Court ‑‑‑Vakalatnama filed by counsel indicated that he would appear in said appeal at Rawalpindi only‑‑‑Subsequently appeal was transferred to Principal Seat of the High Court and office issued notice to. counsel at Rawalpindi but no notice was issued to appellant‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed in default for no one appeared for appellant nor appellant had himself appeared‑‑‑Office of the High Court should have issued notice to the appellant in person instead of sending post‑card to his counsel who had shown his inability to appear before any other Bench except at Rawalpindi ‑‑‑Held, High Court should have allowed restoration application though it was filed after expiry of limitation period for reasons that appellant had no knowledge about dismissal of appeal‑‑‑Appeal was restored by Supreme Court and would be deemed to be pending before High Court and same would be disposed of after notice to appellants and not to their counsel.
- Malik Amjad Pervez, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Riaz Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1995
- 2. The brief facts are that. the appellants filed a petition under section 7 of Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, challenging the notification issued by the respondent-department resuming the control and management of the properties mentioned therein, which was dismissed. Thereupon, the appellants filed F.A.O. No. 132 of 1982 in the Lahore High Court at Rawalpindi Bench. They engaged Hakim Muhammad Sardar Khan; Advocate, whose Vakalatnama expressly provided that he would, only appear at Rawalpindi. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing to 3-6-1981. Before it could he heard and disposed of at Rawalpindi, the same was, transferred to the principal seat of the High Court at Lahore. It appears that the ` High Court's office at Lahore issued a postcard addressed to the above Advocate informing him that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 11-12-1991. The same was dismissed as none appeared. The appellants' above application for restoration was also dismissed through the order under appeal. After that the appellants filed a petition for leave to appeal, which was granted to consider, whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the aforesaid restoration application in view of the fact that no personal notice was sent to the appellants for the above date of hearing.
- 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We, have also perused the Vakalatnama which was filed by Hakim Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, which indicates that it was expressly stated that he would appear in the-above appeal only at Rawalpindi. In view of the above factual position, it was incumbent on the office of the High Court to have issued notice to the appellants in person for the above date of hearing instead of sending a postcard to Hakim Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Judge. in Chambers should have allowed the above restoration application though it was filed after the expiry of limitation period for obvious reason that the appellants had no knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal.
- 5. We, therefore, allow the above appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 12-5-1992 and the aforesaid order of dismissal dated 11-12-1991. The above F.A.O. No. 132 of 1982 shall be deemed to be pending before the High Court at Lahore. It shall be disposed of after notice to the appellants and not to their advocate unless an advocate is engaged by them for Lahore.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 16‑5‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in C.M. No. 2/C/92 in F.A.O. No. 132 of 1982). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 185‑‑‑Appeal was shown to be barred by 178 days‑‑‑Period of limitation appeared to have been computed by the office from original order and not from the date of order of dismissal of appellant's application for restoration of appeal‑‑‑If period of limitation was calculated from dismissal of application for restoration of appeal and period spent in obtaining certified copies of said order was excluded, appeal would appear to be within time.
Judgment & Decree
O.XLI, R.19
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Appeal in question had been filed at Rawalpindi Bench of the High Court
Vakalatnama filed by counsel indicated that he would appear in said appeal at Rawalpindi only
Subsequently appeal was transferred to Principal Seat of the High Court and office issued notice to. counsel at Rawalpindi but no notice was issued to appellant
Appeal was dismissed in default for no one appeared for appellant nor appellant had himself appeared
Office of the High Court should have issued notice to the appellant in person instead of sending post-card to his counsel who had shown his inability to appear before any other Bench except at Rawalpindi
Held, High Court should have allowed restoration application though it was filed after expiry of limitation period for reasons that appellant had no knowledge about dismissal of appeal
Appeal was restored by Supreme Court and would be deemed to be pending before High Court and same would be disposed of after notice to appellants and not to their counsel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art. 185
Appeal was shown to be barred by 178 days
Period of limitation appeared to have been computed by the office from original order and not from the date of order of dismissal of appellant's application for restoration of appeal
If period of limitation was calculated from dismissal of application for restoration of appeal and period spent in obtaining certified copies of said order was excluded, appeal would appear to be within time. Malik Amjad Pervez, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Riaz Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1995 AJMAL MIAN, J.--This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' application for restoration of the appeal on 11-12-1991.
2. The brief facts are that. the appellants filed a petition under section 7 of Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, challenging the notification issued by the respondent-department resuming the control and management of the properties mentioned therein, which was dismissed. Thereupon, the appellants filed F.A.O. No. 132 of 1982 in the Lahore High Court at Rawalpindi Bench. They engaged Hakim Muhammad Sardar Khan; Advocate, whose Vakalatnama expressly provided that he would, only appear at Rawalpindi. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing to 3-6-1981. Before it could he heard and disposed of at Rawalpindi, the same was, transferred to the principal seat of the High Court at Lahore. It appears that the ` High Court's office at Lahore issued a postcard addressed to the above Advocate informing him that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 11-12-1991. The same was dismissed as none appeared. The appellants' above application for restoration was also dismissed through the order under appeal. After that the appellants filed a petition for leave to appeal, which was granted to consider, whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the aforesaid restoration application in view of the fact that no personal notice was sent to the appellants for the above date of hearing.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We, have also perused the Vakalatnama which was filed by Hakim Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, which indicates that it was expressly stated that he would appear in the-above appeal only at Rawalpindi. In view of the above factual position, it was incumbent on the office of the High Court to have issued notice to the appellants in person for the above date of hearing instead of sending a postcard to Hakim Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Judge. in Chambers should have allowed the above restoration application though it was filed after the expiry of limitation period for obvious reason that the appellants had no knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal.
4. This appeal has also been shown as time-barred by 178 days, but it seems that the period of limitation has been computed by the office from the original order and not from the date of the order of dismissal of appellants' application for restoration of the appeal. If we were to calculate the period of limitation from 16-5-1992 and exclude the period spent in obtaining certified copy of the above order, it seems that the petition was filed within time.
5. We, therefore, allow the above appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 12-5-1992 and the aforesaid order of dismissal dated 11-12-1991. The above F.A.O. No. 132 of 1982 shall be deemed to be pending before the High Court at Lahore. It shall be disposed of after notice to the appellants and not to their advocate unless an advocate is engaged by them for Lahore. A.A./M-3093/S Appeal accepted.