1984 PLP 1068 (SCMR)
RAJ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus Mst. CHAN BIBI AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1068 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --Art. 185 (3)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5-Appeal time-barred-Condonation of delay sought on ground of filing appeal in wrong forum-Provision relating to forum of appeal not in doubt-Mistake of counsel on account of his gross negligence-Held, cannot be a reason for condoning delay- Leave to appeal refused.-Condonation of delay-Counsel and client. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RAJ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus Mst. CHAN BIBI AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1068 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1068 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --Art. 185 (3)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5-Appeal time-barred-Condonation of delay sought on ground of filing appeal in wrong forum-Provision relating to forum of appeal not in doubt-Mistake of counsel on account of his gross negligence-Held, cannot be a reason for condoning delay- Leave to appeal refused.-Condonation of delay-Counsel and client. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1068 (SCMR) (RAJ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus Mst. CHAN BIBI AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafiq Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 29th May, 1984.
- Muhammad Rafiq Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 22-4-1984 of the Pesha war High Court, Circuit Abbottabad passed in C. M. No. 156/84). --Art. 185 (3)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5-Appeal time-barred-Condonation of delay sought on ground of filing appeal in wrong forum-Provision relating to forum of appeal not in doubt-Mistake of counsel on account of his gross negligence-Held, cannot be a reason for condoning delay- Leave to appeal refused.-[Condonation of delay-Counsel and client]. Mst. Mahmooda Begum and others v. Major Malik Muhammad Ishaq and others C. A. No. 208 of 1977 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Mst. Mahmooda Begum and others v. Major Malik Muhammad Ishaq and others C. A. No. 208 of 1977 ref. Muhammad Rafiq Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 29th May, 1984. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C. J.‑One Abdul Majid Khan now represented by his legal representatives sued the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 70,000 and interest at the rate of 13 per cent per annum on the basis of a pronote and a receipt dated 4th of November, 1974. These documents were execut ed by Zarin Khan, who died 'issueless leaving the petitioner as his sole surviver. The suit was decreed on 28th of June, 1983, and an appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Haripur on 16th of July, 1983, which was dismissed on 21st of February, 1984. The petitioner next filed an appeal in the High Court alleging that he had earlier filed an appeal in a wrong forum and sought for the condona tion of delay, but the High Court rejected the appeal on the ground that there could not be two opinions as to the forum in which the appeal should have been filed and as no valid reason was given as to why the appeal had been filed before the District Judge, there was no occasion to condone the delay, and the appeal was, accordingly, disposed of. In Mst. Mahmooda Begum and others v. Major Malik Muhammad Ishaq and others C. A. No. 208 of 1977 we have held that no benefit of any bona fide mistake can be given as the provision, relating to the forum where the appeal should have been filed, was not in doubt, and if the counsel had made a mistake on account of his gross negligence that cannot be a reason for condoning the delay. Accordingly, we find the order of the High Court to be unexceptionable, and dismiss the petition. S. Q. Appeal dismissed.