1990 PLP 1020 (SCMR)
RAHIM BAKHSH‑‑Petitioners, Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1020 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | RAHIM BAKHSH‑‑Petitioners, Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1020 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1020 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1020 (SCMR) (RAHIM BAKHSH‑‑Petitioners, Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A.R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 2 of 1982).
- S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P. No. 2 of 1982).
- S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 692 of 1983).
- A. R. Shaukat Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P. No. 692 of 1983).
- Date of hearing: 16th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 31‑10‑1981 passed in Writ Petition No.1373‑R of 1977). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ . ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Delay, condonation of‑‑‑Petitioner filing petition after considerable delay sought condonation of delay on ground that time spent in Intra‑Court appeal should be excluded in computing limitation‑‑ Supreme Court did not consider ground taken by petitioner as sufficient ground for condonation of delay and dismissed petition as barred by time. Noor Muhammad v. Assistant Commissioner 1986 SCMR 292; Mst. Hajran Khatoon v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1987 SCMR 1153 and Syed Sajjad Haider v. Field General Court Martial 1988 SCMR 1035 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Dispute between parties related to a house which was found to be divisible and petitioners had already been given portion that was in their possession‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Dispute between parties related to a house which was found to be divisible and petitioners had already been given portion that was in their possession‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. A.R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 2 of 1982). S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P. No. 2 of 1982). S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 692 of 1983). A. R. Shaukat Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P. No. 692 of 1983). Date of hearing: 16th September, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the same judgment of the Lahore High Court.
2. The petition bearing No. 692/83 is barred by 835 days. The petitioner seeks condonation of the delay. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has preferred an Intra‑Court appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge. It was dismissed as incompetent. The petitioner prays that the time spent in pursuing the Intra‑Court appeal should be excluded in computing limitation. In view of the judgments of this Court in Noor Muhammad v. Assistant Commissioner 1986 SCMR 292, Mst. Hajran Khatoon v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1987 SCMR 1153 and Syed Sajjad Haider v. Field General Court Martial 1988 SCMR 1035, we can hardly find this as sufficient ground for condonation of the delay. The petition is therefore dismissed as barred by time.
3. As regards C.P. No. 2 of 1982, it may be stated that the dispute between the parties relates to a house situate in Sutar Mandi inside Lahori Gate, which g was found to be divisible. The petitioners have already been given the portion that was in their possession. Leave is refused. H.B.T./R‑135/S Leave refused.