1991 PLP 1841 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL DANISH — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, F.I.A. and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1841 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TUFAIL DANISH — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, F.I.A. and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1841 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1841 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1841 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD TUFAIL DANISH — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, F.I.A. and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 1990.
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- "There is question of limitation which was taken notice of at the stage of admission. The delay was condoned only for the purpose of admission on the basis of an affidavit of Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Zulfiqar Advocate that he rendered advice to the appellant that the period of limitation for filing the appeal was 120 days. Intimation of the dismissal of the appellant's departmental appeal was communicated to the appellant under letter dated 25‑11‑1986. This appeal was filed on 8‑1‑1987. Thus the appeal was filed after thirteen days of the period of limitation. The wrong advice rendered by an advocate did not save the period of limitation and the delay in preferring the appeal is not condonable."
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 4-11-89 of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.338(R) of 1989).
Ss.3 & 5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)
Wrong advice of counsel would not extend period of limitation
Appeal filed beyond period of limitation was rightly dismissed by Service Tribunal
No question of law being involved in petition, same was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was serving as a Constable when he was removed from service by Deputy Director, F.IA. His appeal to the departmental authority was rejected. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the question of limitation. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:‑‑ "There is question of limitation which was taken notice of at the stage of admission. The delay was condoned only for the purpose of admission on the basis of an affidavit of Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Zulfiqar Advocate that he rendered advice to the appellant that the period of limitation for filing the appeal was 120 days. Intimation of the dismissal of the appellant's departmental appeal was communicated to the appellant under letter dated 25‑11‑1986. This appeal was filed on 8‑1‑1987. Thus the appeal was filed after thirteen days of the period of limitation. The wrong advice rendered by an advocate did not save the period of limitation and the delay in preferring the appeal is not condonable."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the admission order wherein the Court condoned the delay only for the purpose of admission of the appeal without prejudice to the question of limitation if agitated by the respondent's side. The learned counsel submitted that the respondents had not filed the written statement. He also referred to para. 4 of the impugned judgment by which the side of the respondents was closed as the Inspector who had appeared on behalf of the respondents had no instructions. In this petition, the petitioner has admitted that he had filed a time‑barred appeal barred by 19 days and this was done so because the petitioner had been advised by his counsel. The Service Tribunal has taken notice of this fact. A wrong advice of counsel does A not extend the period of limitation. The Tribunal had not condoned the delay. Under section 3 of the Limitation Act, if a suit or an appeal filed beyond the, period of limitation, the suit or the appeal has to be dismissed.
3. No question of law is involved in this petition. The petition has no force and the same is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./M‑1290/S Petition dismissed.