1969SCMR 854 (PLP)
FATEH DIN‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS Respondents
| Citation | 1969SCMR 854 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FATEH DIN‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969SCMR 854 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969SCMR 854 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969SCMR 854 (PLP) (FATEH DIN‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 3rd October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 11th May 1967, in Writ Petition No. 700 of 1967).
O. XIII, r. 1‑Certified copy of judgment ready for delivery on 24‑7‑67‑No plausible explanation for delay‑Petition dismissed as time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
O. XIII, r. 1‑Certified copy of judgment ready for delivery on 24‑7‑67‑No plausible explanation for delay‑Petition dismissed as time‑barred. Muhammad Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 3rd October 1967. FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑This petition is barred by time by 24 days. In the petition for condonation of the delay it is stated that (i) this petition for special leave could not be filed in time because the lawyer did not communicate to the petitioner the fate of his writ petition and (ii) that he was also not given any lots for the delivery of the certified copies by the Copying Branch. The writ petition was dismissed or. 11‑5‑67 and the petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment on 12‑7‑
6. There is no plausible explanation why he did not try to ascertain the fate of his writ application for about 2 months. It seems that he took delivery of the certified copy of the judgment on 31‑7‑67 though it was ready on 24‑7‑
67. The explanation for the delay therefore cannot be considered at all satisfactory. This petition is dismissed as time‑barred. Petition dismissed.