1983 PLP 1528 (CLC)
UMRAO ALI AND OTHERS‑‑Appellants Versus NOOR ELAHI AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1528 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam S. Sidhwa and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ |
| Parties | UMRAO ALI AND OTHERS‑‑Appellants Versus NOOR ELAHI AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1528 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1528 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam S. Sidhwa and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1528 (CLC) (UMRAO ALI AND OTHERS‑‑Appellants Versus NOOR ELAHI AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Hamid Ali Shah for Appellants.
- Mian Habib‑ur‑Rehman Ansari for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing : 17th January, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 5‑Wrong impression given by counsel ‑Condonation of delay on ground of‑Letters Patent Appeal time‑barred by seven days Counsel contending to have given wrong impression to appellants that remedy would be by way of Special Leave to Appeal in Supreme Court‑Counsel filing no affidavit to this effect‑Held, wrong impres sion given by counsel not good ground for condonation of delay in filing appeal.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑This Letters Patent Appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby he on 5th April, 1967, accepted Writ Petition No. 2293‑R/63 filed by Noor Elahi respondent No. 1 against Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and Umrao Ali, etc., the appellants herein. Alongwith the Letters Patent Appeal an application i.e. C.M. 1 /67 for the condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent appeal has also been moved. Since we propose to dispose of that appli cation first, we need not set out the facts of the case. The impugned judg ment was passed and announced on 5th April, 1967. The application for supply of its copy was given on 12th April, 1967. The copy of the judg ment was prepared on 14th April, 1967, whereas the Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 4th May, 1967. It was thus barred by 7 days.
2. The learned counsel contends that the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition had given the impression to the appellants that the impugned order could be challenged only by way of the Petition' for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court and it was under this bona fide impression that the petitioners applied for the copy for Supreme Court, which is borne out by the copy of the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondents has seriously opposed the prayer for the condo nation of delay on various grounds.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available before us, we find that there is a delay of 7 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal ; the affidavit of the learned coun sel that he was under the wrong impression that the remedy would lie b way of Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court or that he had give such advice or impression to the petitioners/appellants has not been filed in this Court and that it is now well‑settled that the wrong impression given by a counsel is not a good ground for the condonation of delay in filing appeal. For these reasons, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Re sultantly, the application i.e. C.M. 1 /67 is rejected and the Letters Paten Appeal is dismissed as barred by time. The parties are, however, left t bear their own costs. K.M.A. Petition dismissed.