Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 149 of 1979, decided on 8th April 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑12‑1969, in Settlement Appeal No. 7/69).
‑Art. 185 (3)‑Leave to appeal‑Delay‑Petition barred by 3 days -Delay sought to be condoned on ground of having occurred due to some wrong view of a departmental functionary in matter of filing a copy of judgment under appeal or a copy of grounds of appeal in High Court‑Plea, held, not sufficient to show any special concession to petitioner.‑[ Delay].
Fazal‑i‑Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 8th April, 1980.
‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court dated 6‑12‑1978, whereby settlement appeal No. 7/69 filed by the petitioner was dismissed inter alia on the ground that the matter at this juncture was pending before the Federal Government and as such the appeal in the High Court had become infructuous. The actual passage in the High Court judgment reads as follows :
"Therefore, it would follow that because of the subsequent proceedings, after the order appealed against, which are being carried under the newly enacted law and are sub judice, these appeals have become infructuous. These are, therefore, dismissed as such but in the cir cumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs."
2. The petition is barred by three days. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay pleading that it was due to some wrong view of a departmental functionary in the matter of filing a copy of the judgment under appeal or a copy of the grounds of appeal in the High Court. The plea advanced in our opinion is not sufficient to show any special concession to the petitioner in the matter of extension of time.
3. The petition is dismissed as time‑barred and also because as held by the High Court that the matter is again sub judice before .a departmental forum, where the petitioner will have the opportunity to take up whatever pleas it may like to urge in this case.
4. The petition is consequently dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer