1980 PLP 875 (SCMR)
JAHANA-Petitioner Versus GHULAM ALI AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 875 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | JAHANA-Petitioner Versus GHULAM ALI AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 19080) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 875 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 19080) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 875 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 875 (SCMR) (JAHANA-Petitioner Versus GHULAM ALI AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Raja Said Akbar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 4th February 1980.
- Munir A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Raja Said Akbar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 11-7-1974, in R. S. A 110/64).
S-5- Condonation of delay--Appeal barred by 105 days-Appel lant unable to satisfactorily explain long- delay nor making out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay-Petition for special leave to appeal dismissed. .
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment and order of the High Court dated 11‑7‑1974. The appeal is barred by 105 days. Th.‑ petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. We have gone through the contents of that application and also heard the learned counsel in that respect. In our opinion the petitioner has been unable to satisfactorily explain the long delay of 105 days involved in this case, and nor has he made out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The petition is dismissed as time barred. Petition dismissed.