2001 PLP 770 (SCMR)
MARKET COMMITTEE, LAHORE through Administrator — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 770 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, C.J. and Ch. Muhammad Arif, J |
| Parties | MARKET COMMITTEE, LAHORE through Administrator — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 770 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 770 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, C.J. and Ch. Muhammad Arif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 770 (SCMR) (MARKET COMMITTEE, LAHORE through Administrator — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.. M. Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in all Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th July, 2000.
- ----S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Delay, condonation of---Plea of delayed information about dismissal of Constitutional petition by the High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was filed with a delay of 115 days---Contention of the petitioner was that the counsel had not informed the petitioner about the dismissal of the petition by the High Court in time-- Validity---Petitioner had not stated in the petition for leave to appeal that the counsel (Additional Advocate-General) was not authorised to appear on behalf of the petitioner (Market Committee)---If the petitioner had not been informed about the fate of the Constitutional petition, opposite-party could not be penalised for such omission---Supreme Court observed that the petitioner could take appropriate steps available under the law against the counsel---Leave to appeal was refused.
- The above petitions are barred by 115 days. Mr. M.A. Zafar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner submits- that the office has miscalculated the period for the purpose of computing limitation. He further contends that the petitioner was not represented before the High Court and the Additional Advocate-General, who entered appearance on Court's call, did not inform the petitioner about the passing of the impugned judgment. It is, however, not stated in the application for the condonation of delay that the learned Additional Advocate-General was not authorised to appear do behalf of the Market Committee.
- 2. Be that as it may, if the learned Additional Advocate-General had not informed the petitioner as to the fate of the writ petitions, the opposite party cannot be penalised for his omission. The petitioner may, if so advised, take appropriate steps available under the law against the Law Officer.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25-1-2000 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petitions Nos. 10821, 10822, 10823, 12711 and 12712 of 1998).
S. 5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Plea of delayed information about dismissal of Constitutional petition by the High Court
Petition for leave to appeal was filed with a delay of 115 days
Contention of the petitioner was that the counsel had not informed the petitioner about the dismissal of the petition by the High Court in time-- Validity
Petitioner had not stated in the petition for leave to appeal that the counsel (Additional Advocate-General) was not authorised to appear on behalf of the petitioner (Market Committee)
If the petitioner had not been informed about the fate of the Constitutional petition, opposite-party could not be penalised for such omission
Supreme Court observed that the petitioner could take appropriate steps available under the law against the counsel
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
S. 5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Plea of delayed information about dismissal of Constitutional petition by the High Court
Petition for leave to appeal was filed with a delay of 115 days
Contention of the petitioner was that the counsel had not informed the petitioner about the dismissal of the petition by the High Court in time-- Validity
Petitioner had not stated in the petition for leave to appeal that the counsel (Additional Advocate-General) was not authorised to appear on behalf of the petitioner (Market Committee)
If the petitioner had not been informed about the fate of the Constitutional petition, opposite-party could not be penalised for such omission
Supreme Court observed that the petitioner could take appropriate steps available under the law against the counsel
Leave to appeal was refused. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.. M. Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in all Petitions). Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th July, 2000. The above petitions are barred by 115 days. Mr. M.A. Zafar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner submits- that the office has miscalculated the period for the purpose of computing limitation. He further contends that the petitioner was not represented before the High Court and the Additional Advocate-General, who entered appearance on Court's call, did not inform the petitioner about the passing of the impugned judgment. It is, however, not stated in the application for the condonation of delay that the learned Additional Advocate-General was not authorised to appear do behalf of the Market Committee.
2. Be that as it may, if the learned Additional Advocate-General had not informed the petitioner as to the fate of the writ petitions, the opposite party cannot be penalised for his omission. The petitioner may, if so advised, take appropriate steps available under the law against the Law Officer.
3. With the above observation, all the petitions are dismissed being barred by time. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-168/S Petition dismissed.