P L D 1988 Supreme Court 258 (PLP)
AHMAD NAWAZ and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AY UB‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1988 Supreme Court 258 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑5. 12‑‑Time requisite for obtaining copy‑‑Period between the date when the copy is ready and the date when it is delivered, held, could not be excluded as of right‑‑Delay could be condoned only on furnishing of sufficient explanation in that behalf‑‑Supreme Court, however, desired legislative intervention to the effect that the period spent from the date of application for copy up to the duly intimated date of delivery of the same, be treated as time requisite for obtaining copy. . pp. 258, 259 A & B |
| Bench Members | M4hcmrmad Afzal Zullah, Ali Hussain Qazilbash |
| Parties | AHMAD NAWAZ and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AY UB‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1988 Supreme Court 258 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1988 Supreme Court 258 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑5. 12‑‑Time requisite for obtaining copy‑‑Period between the date when the copy is ready and the date when it is delivered, held, could not be excluded as of right‑‑Delay could be condoned only on furnishing of sufficient explanation in that behalf‑‑Supreme Court, however, desired legislative intervention to the effect that the period spent from the date of application for copy up to the duly intimated date of delivery of the same, be treated as time requisite for obtaining copy. . pp. 258, 259 A & B bench comprising: M4hcmrmad Afzal Zullah, Ali Hussain Qazilbash.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1988 Supreme Court 258 (PLP) (AHMAD NAWAZ and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AY UB‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Naeem, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by M.Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Judgment dated 27‑9‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in Civil Revision No.447 of 1985). Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑5. 12‑‑Time requisite for obtaining copy‑‑Period between the date when the copy is ready and the date when it is delivered, held, could not be excluded as of right‑‑Delay could be condoned only on furnishing of sufficient explanation in that behalf‑‑Supreme Court, however, desired legislative intervention to the effect that the period spent from the date of application for copy up to the duly intimated date of delivery of the same, be treated as time requisite for obtaining copy. . [pp. 258, 259] A & B West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi 1973 S C M R 555 and Fateh Muhammad and others v. Malik Qadir Bakhsh 1975 S C M R 157 ref. Gul Muhammad v. Allah Ditta P L D 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 443 mentioned.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from Judgment dated 27‑9‑1986 of the Lahore High Court.; whereby petitioners Civil Revision was dismissed.
2. The petitioners' suit for declaration having been dismissed, their appeal was dismissed as time barred. The petitioners' revision before the High Court also failed on the ground that the condonation of delay being a matter of discretion by the lower at appellate Court, no justification had been made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the disputed period; namely, between the date when the copy is ready and the date when it is delivered, should have been excluded as of right being requisite for obtaining the copy. He has relied on West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi 1973 S C M R 555.
4. The Judgment in the case of Industrial Development Corporation, as also some other Judgments, including Fateh Muhammad and others v. Malik Qadir Bakhsh 1975 S C M R 157, were noticed by the High Court. It was rightly held that under the existing law the period as is in dispute in this case, could not be excluded as of right. However, in a given case, the delay could be condoned only on furnishing of sufficient explanation in that behalf. Thus no error of law has been committed.
5. Regarding the merits of application for condonation of delay, the petitioners .having lost before both the learned Courts below on findings of facts, no justification has been made out for interference by this Court. This petition, therefore, merits dismissal.
6. Before parting with this Judgment, it needs to be observed that the question of exclusion /condonation regarding the period spent between the date when the copy is ready for delivery and the date of obtaining delivery, has been the subject‑matter of considerable controversy since 1960, when the case of Gul Muhammad v. Allah Ditta P L D 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 443 was decided by the Lahore High Court. The litigant public experiences uncertainty and suffers considerable expense and inconvenience on account of existing state of law in this behalf. A legislative intervention may have to be considered. One of the various possibilities is that an appropriate explanation in section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908, may be added. B According to one suggestion, it can be to the effect that the period spent from the date of the application for copy upto the duly intimated date of delivery of the same, be treated as time requisite for obtaining copy. The office shall bring these observations to the notice of the concerned authority.
7. With the foregoing observations this petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. M.B.A. / A‑198/ S Petition dismissed.