1994 PLP 987 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MANZOOR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MURTAZA‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 987 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MANZOOR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MURTAZA‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 987 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 987 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 987 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MANZOOR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MURTAZA‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz Akhtar, Advocate and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1993.
- No supporting affidavit of the Advocate has been filed. Without it condonation is not possible.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 4‑3‑1992 passed in RSA No. 113 of 1985). ‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑ Petition was barred by time‑‑‑Grounds for filing delayed petition were the wrong advice of counsel‑..No supporting affidavit of counsel had been filed without which, condonation of delay was not possible‑‑‑High Court, even on merits had given cogent reasons for interfering with findings of fact which did not require interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner who is the plaintiff/pre emptor, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 4‑3‑1992 whereby the claim of the plaintiff was dismissed on grounds of waiver and estoppel.
2. The petition is shown to be barred by 21 days. The explanation given in the application for condonation of delay is as hereunder:‑‑
"That the petitioner in the company of one Hafiz Javaid Iqbal went to contact a local lawyer Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Rijwana at Multan who has sufficient standing at the Bar as to the limitation for filing petition for leave to appeal when the time of 60 days has not yet expired. (c) That he was told that the requisite time for filing the petition for leave to appeal is 90 days. (d) That it was much before the expiry of those 90 days that he went to the present counsel on 18‑7‑1992 at Multan to engage him for filing the same. It turned out that the limitation was 60 days for filing the petition for leave to appeal." No supporting affidavit of the Advocate has been filed. Without it condonation is not possible.
3. Even on merits, we find that the High Court has given cogent reasons for interfering with a finding of fact and that does not require our interference.
4. In the circumstances, leave to appeal is refused. A.A./M‑1876/S Leave refused.