Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

AMIR DIN versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE


Section 27 has been sent to the applicant's lawyer by the acknowledgment of the registered notice, which requires him to appear on a specific date for discussion of any notice of the date of hearing given to the applicant. no
1982 S C M R 354

Present : Muhammad Haleem and Mushtaq Hussain JJ

AMIR DIN AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners

versus

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 248 of 1975, decided on 25th October, 1980.

(On appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 11th November, 1974 passed in L. P. A. No. 654/66).

West Pakistan General Clauses AM (VI of 1959)‑

--S. 27‑‑Presumption‑Notice sent to petitioner's counsel by registered post acknowledgment due requiring him to appear on a specified date‑Presumption arises of notice having been duly received by addressee‑Counsel even not filing affidavit on his own in support of assertion of having not been served‑Contention as to no notice of date of hearing given to petitioner repelled.

Raja Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 25th October, 1980.

ORDER

MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN J.

‑L. P. A. 654 of 1966 which was transferred to Bahawalpur Circuit was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Bahawalpur on filth November, 1974 on merits. Neither the party was present nor did their counsel appear on that date. This petition seeks to challenge the order of the High Court.

2. The petition is barred by 64 days arid it has been submitted before us that since neither the counsel nor the party knew that the case had been disposed of without hearing, the period of limitation for appeal should start from the date of the knowledge.

3. We are afraid we do not see eye to eye with the submission of the learned counsel, for the judgment of the High Court very clearly states that notice was sent to learned counsel for the petitioners on 22nd of October, 1974 by registered post acknowledgment due. There is a presumption under the General Clauses Act that if this has been done the notice would be deemed to have been duly received by the addressee. The learned counsel has not even filed an affidavit on his own in support of the assertion that he was not served.

4. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Petition 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
us immigration advocates from Gohar Ghoushti lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.