1968 SCMR 120 (PLP)
ABDUL HAMID-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 120 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 120 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 120 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 120 (PLP) (ABDUL HAMID-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Amiad Hussain, 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 17th May 1967, in Writ Petition No. 381-R of 1967). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)- pursuing Petition for special leave to appeal barred by limitation-Petitioner remedy with assistance of counsel-Ground that delay was due to illness of petitioner-Not accepted-Petition dismissed as barred by time- Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII, r.1.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.-This petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissalby the High Court of a petition for a writ in a Settlement matter is barred by time by 24 days. The excuse given is illness, and is supported by a Hakim's certificate of treatment for fever from the 2nd August 1967 to the 13th August 1967, and from the later date up to the 1st September 1967, by a certificate from an allopathic medical practitioner, certifying enteric fever. The petition was filed through Attorney and counsel on the Sth September, the copy of the High Court order having been procured earlier. It was ready for delivery on the 8th August 1967. Evidently, the petitioner was not pursuing the case unassisted. He had counsel in the High Court, and steps were certainly taken on his behalf during the month of August when he was allegedly prostrated by enteric fever in Sangla Hill. The excuse of illness is, therefore, unacceptable. It may be noted that application for a copy of the High Court's order, which is dated 17th May 1967, was made only on the 13th July 1967, when only three days of the limitation of 60 days remained to run out. Valuable rights have vested in theh opposite-party in consequence of the petitioner's default. The petition is dismissed as barred by time. Petition dismissed.