1978 PLP 166 (SCMR)
Haji MALIK AMAN-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) PESHAWAR
| Citation | 1978 PLP 166 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- O. II, r. 3-Condonation of delay-Petitions and other proceed ings being received by Supreme Court during vacation all working days (except Saturdays), no ambiguity existing on point- Contention of petitioner being under impression of limitation not running during long vacation of Court, held, no boors fide excuse for condonation of delay.--Limitation-Condonation of delay. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji MALIK AMAN-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) PESHAWAR |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules and Order, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 166 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules and Order, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 166 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- O. II, r. 3-Condonation of delay-Petitions and other proceed ings being received by Supreme Court during vacation all working days (except Saturdays), no ambiguity existing on point- Contention of petitioner being under impression of limitation not running during long vacation of Court, held, no boors fide excuse for condonation of delay.--Limitation-Condonation of delay. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 166 (SCMR) (Haji MALIK AMAN-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) PESHAWAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Shahudul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khawaja Wali Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Karimullah Durrani, Advocate instructed by Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 19th November 1977.
- Syed Muhammad Shahudul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khawaja Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 7-6-1974, passed by the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No. 99 of 1972). -- O. II, r. 3-Condonation of delay-Petitions and other proceed ings being received by Supreme Court during vacation all working days (except Saturdays), no ambiguity existing on point- Contention of petitioner being under impression of limitation not running during long vacation of Court, held, no boors fide excuse for condonation of delay.--[Limitation-Condonation of delay]. Mushtaq Ahmed v. Vice-Chancellor, University of the Punjab 1970 SCMR26ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ O. II, r. 3‑Condonation of delay‑Petitions and other proceed ings being received by Supreme Court during vacation all working days (except Saturdays), no ambiguity existing on point- Contention of petitioner being under impression of limitation not running during long vacation of Court, held, no boors fide excuse for condonation of delay.‑‑[Limitation‑Condonation of delay]. Mushtaq Ahmed v. Vice‑Chancellor, University of the Punjab 1970 SCMR26ref. Syed Muhammad Shahudul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khawaja Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Karimullah Durrani, Advocate instructed by Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents. Date of hearing : 19th November 1977. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This petition is barred by time. Judgment was delivered on 7-6‑1974. Application for supply of copy was made on 17‑6‑1974. It was made ready for delivery on 9.7‑1974, though delivery was tactually obtained on 13‑7‑1974. The petition was filed in this Court on 2‑10‑1974 and thus was out of time by thirty‑six days.
2. In excuse for the delay, it is submitted that the petitioner was under the impression that limitation did not run during the long Vacation of the Court. Accordingly the petition was filed immediately on the reopening of the Court. In these circumstances it was prayed that the delay be condoned.
3. There is no merit in this plea. The practice of this Court, as laid down in Order II, rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules and Orders is than petitions and other proceeding are received by the Supreme Court during the Vacation on all working days (except Saturdays). No ambiguity existed on this point and there could be no scope for a contrary impression. Hence no bona fide excuse for condonation of delay exists. The same view, in some what similar circumstances, was taken by this Court is Mushtaq Ahmad v. Vice‑Chancellor. University of the Punjab, Lahore (1970 S C M R 26).
4. This petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of limitation. Petition dismissed.