2004 PLP 1109 (SCMR)
ATTA ULLAH — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minority Affairs, Islamabad and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1109 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ATTA ULLAH — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minority Affairs, Islamabad and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1109 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1109 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1109 (SCMR) (ATTA ULLAH — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minority Affairs, Islamabad and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 25-4-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No. 493 of 1985).
Arts. 185(3) & 199
Constitutional petition, restoration of
Un explained delay of more than 2-1/2 years
Constitutional petition was dismissed by the High Court for non-prosecution on 20-7-1999, and the petitioner filed application for its restoration on 22-4-2002, raising the plea that due to illness of his counsel, he could not put in appearance--High Court dismissed the application for the reason that notices had been issued to the parties but the petitioner remained un represented and the application was time barred
No date or month had been stated by the petitioner nor there was any specific averment as to when the petitioner learnt of the dismissal of the Constitutional petition where the party approaches the Court beyond the period of limitation, such party is required to explain the delay of each day
Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by High Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 25-4-2002 of a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the petitioner's application for recalling of the earlier order, dated 20-7-1999 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 493 of 1985 was dismissed. The facts as stated by the petitioner are that he was given on lease 8 acres of agricultural land by respondent No.2, Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property. Lahore. His application for renewal of lease was rejected in the year 1980 by respondent No. 3, Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property. Sheikhupura, on 7-7-1980. His appeal also met the same fate and was dismissed by the Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, on 14-9-1981. His revision petition was dismissed by respondent No.1 on 15-2-1984, whereupon the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 493 of 1985, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20-7-1999. The petitioner moved on 22-4-2002 C.M. No. 1 of 2002 for the restoration of above writ petition. It was contended before the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court that the petitioner's counsel fell sick and he could not enter appearance on the above date of hearing. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the order, dated 25-4-2002 has dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. He has reiterated the arguments which were advanced before the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The application for restoration of the aforesaid writ petition was hopelessly time barred and no plausible explanation was furnished by the petitioner for this inordinate delay. The learned Single Judge has discussed all these aspect in the order impugned and we do not find any justification to interfere with the same. His determination is reproduced as under:
"It was noted in the order, dated 20-7-1999 that not only the case was duly listed for hearing even notices had been issued by the office to the parties for the said date, but the petitioner remained un represented. The application is hopelessly belated and time barred. There is a general assertion in paragraph No.4 of the application that the applicant saw his counsel in the year 2001. No date or month has been stated neither there is any specific averment as to when he learnt of the dismissal of the petition. Suffice it to observe that in a matter, the party approaches the Court beyond the period of limitation, he is required to explain the delay of each day." Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being without any in. is dismissed and leave declined. Q.M.H./A-280/S Petition dismissed.