1981SCMR817 (PLP)
SADIQ MOHY.UD-DIN- Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, DISTRICT ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE
| Citation | 1981SCMR817 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ---S. 5-Condonation of delay-Law well settled that no inter- Court appeal could be filed in cases like case in hand-Question of filing inter-Court appeal in good faith, in circumstances, held, does not arise and as such no sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay.-Intro-Court appeal. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SADIQ MOHY.UD-DIN- Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, DISTRICT ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981SCMR817 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981SCMR817 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---S. 5-Condonation of delay-Law well settled that no inter- Court appeal could be filed in cases like case in hand-Question of filing inter-Court appeal in good faith, in circumstances, held, does not arise and as such no sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay.-Intro-Court appeal. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981SCMR817 (PLP) (SADIQ MOHY.UD-DIN- Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, DISTRICT ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahufdin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 25th November, 1980,
- Ch. Zamir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 27th April, 1976 in I.C.A. 33/76).
S. 5-Condonation of delay-Law well settled that no inter- Court appeal could be filed in cases like case in hand-Question of filing inter-Court appeal in good faith, in circumstances, held, does not arise and as such no sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay.-[Intro-Court appeal]. Malik Ahmad Khan v. Iqbal 1975 S C M R 275 ref. Ch. Zamir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Zamir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahufdin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : 25th November, 1980, KARAM ELAHBB CHAUHAN, J.-This is a petition against an order of a Division Bench of the High Court dated 27th April, 1976, whereby an Inter Court Appeal filed by the petitioner was held as incompetent under the law relevant in this respect. The High Court in support of its view relied upon Malik Ahmad Khan v. Iqbal 1975 S C M R
275. When confronted with the above precedent the learned counsel conceded that the order of the Division Bench was correct and that be does not challenge the same as such.
2. However, he submitted that this should be treated as a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge (which was challenged in
1. C. A.) dated 13th February, 1976 whereby his Writ Petition No. 773/75 was dismissed. It may be mentioned that in this respect the petition would be barred by 51 days. Learned counsel has prayed that the delay may be condoned because the petitioner had pursued the remedy of the Inter Court Appeal in good faith and the time spent therein should be allowed towards counting the limitation in the present petition.
3. We are afraid that the request cannot be acceded to in the face of the judgment of this Court in Malik Ahmad Khan v. Iqbal which already existed in the field much prior to the institution of the Inter Court Appeal and which with little diligence could have been noticed by all concerned, for the proposition that no Inter-Court Appeal in this case could be filed. In these circumstances, the question of filing the Inter-Court Appeal in good faith does not arise and as such there exists so sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4, The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.