1991 PLP 1336 (SCMR)
PEER MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1336 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid |
| Parties | PEER MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1336 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1336 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1336 (SCMR) (PEER MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th July, 1988.
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 29-11-1981 in Case No.70/972).
S. 14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Petitioner seeking exclusion of time he spent in Civil Court in computing limitation for purpose of filing appeal before Service Tribunal was required to show that he had prosecuted proceedings before Civil Court with due diligence and in good faith
Tribunal had found that diligence and good faith were lacking in the case of petitioner-- Findings of fact of Tribunal could not be interfered with in appeal before Supreme Court--Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 29‑11‑1981 in Case No.70/972). ‑‑‑‑S. 14‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Petitioner seeking exclusion of time he spent in Civil Court in computing limitation for purpose of filing appeal before Service Tribunal was required to show that he had prosecuted proceedings before Civil Court with due diligence and in good faith‑‑‑Tribunal had found that diligence and good faith were lacking in the case of petitioner‑‑ Findings of fact of Tribunal could not be interfered with in appeal before Supreme Court‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th July, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was a driver in the office of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). For reason of unauthorised absence from duty his services were terminated by an Additional Commissioner. He preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue but it failed. He then filed a civil suit to challenge the legality of the order of termination of his services. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. However, on appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the ground that the remedy of the petitioner lay before the Service Tribunal and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court but that too failed. He then approached the Service Tribunal to seek relief. The learned Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the ground that it was barred by time.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the petitioner was entitled to the exclusion of the time which he spent in the Civil Court in computing limitation for the purpose of filing the appeal before the Service Tribunal. It is to be noticed that under Section 14, Limitation Act, the petitioner was required to show that he had prosecuted proceedings before the Civil Court with due diligence and in good faith. The learned Tribunal found that good faith and diligence were lacking in this case. These being findings of fact, we are not persuaded to interfere with them. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T./P‑107/S Petition dismissed.