1989SCMR606 (PLP)
THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF — Petitioner Versus Pir AFTAB HUSSAIN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR606 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF — Petitioner Versus Pir AFTAB HUSSAIN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR606 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR606 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR606 (PLP) (THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF — Petitioner Versus Pir AFTAB HUSSAIN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing; 8th November, 1988.
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed m FA.O. 4 of 1983, dated 13-2-1983).
Art.185(3)--Petition for leave to appeal--Appreciation of evidence--Petitioner's first appeal against original order of District Court, was dismissed by High Court as time-barred--Order impugned--Petitioner's counsel who had been engaged for filing appeal in High Court was stated to have acted in gross negligence by filing appeal beyond limitation--Such arguments, having been raised before High Court, were repelled by observation regarding facts--No reason existed to differ with High Court on the question of appreciation of facts before it, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing; 8th November, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner's first appeal against an original order of the District Court regarding the character of the suit property; namely, whether or not it was Waqf property. Admittedly the appeal was time‑barred and was dismissed as such. Learned counsel, however, contended that the application for condonation, of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act should have been allowed on the ground that the papers for filing the appeal were handed over to the counsel well in time and that if he had not acted with gross negligence the appeal could have been filed within time. He also contended that the conduct of the counsel engaged for the petitioner in the High Court smelt collusion with the opposite‑party. Same arguments were raised before the High Court. They were repelled by observation regarding facts. There is no reason to differ with the High Court on the question of appreciation of facts before it. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. Leave to appeal refused. AA./C‑29/S Leave to appeal refused.