Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 43 of 1979, decided on 20th June 1979.

--‑ S. 6‑Abatement‑‑‑Order of Court not required‑Suit pending in High Court on promulgation of Act‑‑High Court passing order on 21‑5‑1979 that suit stood abated by virtue of S. 6‑‑Appeal filed before Tribunal on 31‑5‑1979, held, hopelessly time‑barred‑Erroneous advice of counsel regarding forum, held, not sufficient ground for condonation of delay.

This is an appeal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 alongwith an application for condonation of delay under section 14 of the Limitation Act.

The appellant was Inspector of Police at Karachi. He was compulsorily retired from service by the order dated 29th June 1959, by the then Commissioner of Karachi. He challenged his aforesaid compulsory retirement and the then Government of West Pakistan by order dated 14th November 1968 set aside the order of retirement and he was re‑instated. The question of the salary for the interim period was agitated but his claim was rejected anti he was granted leave without pay for that period. After serving a legal notice dated 13th December 1970 he filed a suit in the High Court. It seems that no progress was made till 21‑5‑1979 when the High Court passed an order holding that the suit stood abated by virtue of section 6 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently the present appeal was filed on 31‑5‑1979.

From the statements of facts it is plain enough that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred. An application under section 14 of the Limitation Act was made for condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant was wrongly advised by his counsel that the relief could not be claimed through the suit which had been filed and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.

We are not prepared to accept that there is any substance in the plea which has been taken to explain the delay. Admittedly the suit abate by virtue of section 6 of the Act passed in 1973 and the appellant instead of approaching the Tribunal udder the same section slept over the matter for a period of 6 years. Section 6 is very clear and admits of no ambiguity. The suit had already abated and no order of High Court was required Even otherwise the ignorance of law is no excuse. It is not considered reasonable to allow the application for the condonation of such an inordinate delay which has not been satisfactorily explained.

In result the appeal is summarily dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.