1989 SCMR 1631 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1631 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Glulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1631 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1631 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Glulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 1631 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Khurshid Alam Ramey, Advocate Supreme Court and Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in C.P. No.252 of 1982).
- Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in the Remaining Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 1‑3‑1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 597/81, 552/1308, 616, 6(18/1307, 597/1369, 553/1309, 666/1411, 605/1374, 597/1369, 618 and 496 all of 1981, respectively). ‑‑‑S.14‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Limitation‑‑Contention that petitioners had taken resort to Civil Court and High Court under mistaken legal advice and for that reason they were entitled in computing limitation to the deduction of the period which they had spent in pursuing their remedy in the Civil Courts or High Court‑‑Service Tribunal examined the contention and for cogent reason rejected the same‑‑Supreme Court finding no basis to take a different view in the matter dismissed the petitions.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These petitions for special leave to appeal arise from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the petitioners appeals were dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2 Prior to 1963, there used to be officials, known as registration clerks, in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioners to attend to the work of registration of documents under the Registration Act. In 1963, a separate cadre known as the West Pakistan Registration Department Ministerial Establishment was constituted and the registration clerks were inducted into the cadre. By a notification issued on 28‑1‑1979, the cadre was abolished and the registration clerks were reverted to the Establishment of the Deputy Commissioners a before. Except Mian Shams‑ud‑Din who filed a writ petition in the High Court, the other petitioners filed civil suits to call in question the ligality of the notification. The writ petition of Mian Shams‑ud‑Din was dismissed as incompetent on the ground that his remedy laid with the Service Tribunal. He filed an intra‑Court appeal which was dismissed on 30‑9‑
80. The suits filed by the other petitioners were withdrawn from various Civil Courts of the Province by the High Court to itself and by an order dated 20‑10‑1981 a learned Single fudge rejected the plaints on the same ground. The petitioners then fled appeals before the Provincial Service Tribunal. As already indicated, the Tribunal dismissed time the appeal as barred by
3. In support of these petitions it is contended that the petitioners had taken resort to the Civil Court and the High Court under mistaken legal advice and for that reason they were entitled, in computing limitation, to the deduction of the period which they had spent in pursuing their remedy in the Civil Courts or A the High Court. The learned Tribunal examined this plea and for cogent reason rejected it. We find no basis to take a different view in the matter. These petitions are accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./M‑837/S Petitions dismissed.