1990 SCMR 1461 (PLP)
INDRIYAS GILL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB,
| Citation | 1990 SCMR 1461 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | INDRIYAS GILL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 SCMR 1461 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 SCMR 1461 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 SCMR 1461 (PLP) (INDRIYAS GILL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Inayat Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for petitioner
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate‑General, Punjab for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 1989.
- We sent for the Advocate‑General to make sure as to what was the stance of the respondent. He submitted that the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to have been considered.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 28‑1‑1985 in Appeal No. 254/798 of 1984). ‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑ Leave to appeal‑‑‑Application of petitioner for condonation of delay having not been considered by Service Tribunal, Supreme Court converted petition into appeal, allowed same with direction to Service Tribunal to dispose of application of petitioner for condonation of delay in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑‑We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner who laid great stress on the fact that the petitioner had submitted an application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal which was not considered because there is no mention of that in the impugned judgment. We sent for the Advocate‑General to make sure as to what was the stance of the respondent. He submitted that the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to have been considered. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal, allow the same and direct that the Tribunal shall dispose of the application under section 5 for condonation of delay in accordance with law. H.B.T./I‑98/S Petition allowed.