P L D 2011 Supreme Court 961 (PLP)
Ch. MUHAMMAD ILYAS GUJJAR — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2011 Supreme Court 961 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Mian Shakirullah Jan, Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, Tariq Pervez, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD ILYAS GUJJAR — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance. (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2011 Supreme Court 961 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance. (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2011 Supreme Court 961 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Mian Shakirullah Jan, Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, Tariq Pervez, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2011 Supreme Court 961 (PLP) (Ch. MUHAMMAD ILYAS GUJJAR — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sahibzada A. Raza Qasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Anwar Kamal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.56.
- Nemo for Respondents (Nos.1-55 & 57-59).
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.185(3) & 199
Constitutional petition having been decided by a Single Bench of the High Court, intra court appeal under S.3, Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 was competent before the High Court
Counsel for the petitioner, in circumstances, contended that question of limitation would be a hurdle in his way to approach the High Court
Supreme Court observed that question of limitation shall be considered if the application for condonation of delay was filed, since the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy, as was evident from the facts and circumstances, therefore, "subject to all just exceptions" intra court appeal Bench, seized with the matter, may examine the question of limitation, in filing intra court appeal by the petitioner, favourably
Counsel appearing for the caveat had raised objection upon making of such observation by the Supreme Court
Held, petitioner had been pursuing his remedy before Supreme Court as well as before the High Court, therefore, by using the words "subject to all just exceptions" Supreme Court allowed the respondent to raise question qua the limitation, but the court would consider it, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, favourably.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C J.
This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 3rd March, 2010 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. As the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner has been decided by a learned Single Bench of the High Court, therefore, after taking facts from the learned counsel, we have asked him to satisfy the Court about maintainability of instant petition because, prima facie, we were of the opinion that against the impugned judgment ICA under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 was competent before the High Court. In this view of the matter, learned counsel stated that question of limitation would be a hurdle in his way. However, it was pointed out to him that in Accountant General for Pakistan v. Zia Mohy-ud-Din (PLD 2008 SC 164), this Court has observed that the question of limitation shall be considered if the application for condonation of delay is filed, but as we have noted that petitioner has been pursuing his remedy, as is evident from the facts and circumstances, therefore, we are inclined to make an observation that subject to all just exceptions, ICA bench, seized with the matter, may examine the question of limitation, in filing of ICA by the petitioner, favourably.
3. Learned counsel appearing for Caveat has raised objection upon making of such observation by this Court but since, as it has been noted hereinabove, the petitioner has been pursuing his remedy before this Court as well as before the High Court, therefore, by using the words c 'subject to all just exceptions' we have allowed the respondent to raise question qua the limitation, but the Court will consider it, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, favourably. Petition stands disposed of with the above observation. M.A.K./M-84/S Order accordingly.