1982 PLP 801 (SCMR)
EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD-Petitioner Versus Mian IQBAL MAHMOOD AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 801 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Delay-Petition barred by 3 days -Delay sought to be condoned on ground of having occurred due to some wrong view of a departmental functionary in matter of filing a copy of judgment under appeal or a copy of grounds of appeal in High Court-Plea, held, not sufficient to show any special concession to petitioner.- Delay. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD-Petitioner Versus Mian IQBAL MAHMOOD AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 801 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 801 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Delay-Petition barred by 3 days -Delay sought to be condoned on ground of having occurred due to some wrong view of a departmental functionary in matter of filing a copy of judgment under appeal or a copy of grounds of appeal in High Court-Plea, held, not sufficient to show any special concession to petitioner.- Delay. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 801 (SCMR) (EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD-Petitioner Versus Mian IQBAL MAHMOOD AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazal-i-Hussain Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8th April, 1980.
- Fazal‑i‑Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 6-12-1969, in Settlement Appeal No. 7/69). -Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Delay-Petition barred by 3 days -Delay sought to be condoned on ground of having occurred due to some wrong view of a departmental functionary in matter of filing a copy of judgment under appeal or a copy of grounds of appeal in High Court-Plea, held, not sufficient to show any special concession to petitioner.-[ Delay].
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court dated 6‑12‑1978, whereby settlement appeal No. 7/69 filed by the petitioner was dismissed inter alia on the ground that the matter at this juncture was pending before the Federal Government and as such the appeal in the High Court had become infructuous. The actual passage in the High Court judgment reads as follows : "Therefore, it would follow that because of the subsequent proceedings, after the order appealed against, which are being carried under the newly enacted law and are sub judice, these appeals have become infructuous. These are, therefore, dismissed as such but in the cir cumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs."
2. The petition is barred by three days. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay pleading that it was due to some wrong view of a departmental functionary in the matter of filing a copy of the judgment under appeal or a copy of the grounds of appeal in the High Court. The plea advanced in our opinion is not sufficient to show any special concession to the petitioner in the matter of extension of time.
3. The petition is dismissed as time‑barred and also because as held by the High Court that the matter is again sub judice before .a departmental forum, where the petitioner will have the opportunity to take up whatever pleas it may like to urge in this case.
4. The petition is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.