1968 PLP R (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus ALA-UD-DIN AHMAD AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 PLP R (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus ALA-UD-DIN AHMAD AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP R (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP R (SCMR)?
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: 1968 PLP R (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus ALA-UD-DIN AHMAD AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 21st July 1967, in Writ Petition No. 523 of 1963). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)-Petition for special leave to appeal barred by 20 days-Explanation that the petitioner, who had very few days of limitation available, had to run to Rawalpindi to procure fund-Not entertained-- Condonation of delay declined-Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII, r. I.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.-This petition, in a service matter which was brought before the High Court in a petition for a writ, is barred by time by 20 days. , The High Court order was pronounced on the 21st July 1967, but an application for a copy was only made of 16th September 1967, when a mere four days remained of period of 60 days allowed for moving a petition for leave to appeal in this Court. The explanation given is that the petitioner only learnt of the order on the 15th September, but he should have known then that he had very little time in which to move his petition. He states that he came to Lahore on the 18th September, two days after his counsel in Lahore bad applied for the copy, and took delivery of it on the 22nd September. The copy was ready on 19th September, so that only one day of limitation remained when delivery was taken. The further statement is that die petitioner went back to Rawalpindi to procure funds for filing his petition, and suffered an accident on the way, which caused delay in his returning to Lahore, se that he could only return to his petition on the 13th October. The explanation is unacceptable. The petitioner had thej4 aid of counsel in Lahore on the 16th September, and must be presumed to have known through his counsel, that the last date on which his petition could be filed was the 23rd September. The excuse that he had to return to Rawalpindi on the 22nd September to procure money, with which he should have provided "himself when he came to Lahore on the 18th September, since he had only a very few days of limitation available, is a confession that the delay was not due to circumstances over which he had no control. We decline to condone the delay and hereby dismiss this petition as hatred by time. Petition dismissed.