Find a Lawyer

(a) Supreme Court Rules, 1980-

-- O. XII-Civil miscellaneous application-Controversy about limitation-To be raised at time of hearing of appeal because in case preliminary objection regarding limitation is overruled appeal be heard and disposed of on other points-Piecemeal hearing and disposal of appeal, held, against spirit of Rules and practice of Supreme CourtApplication for condonation .of delay at stage of hearing of Civil miscellaneous application, held, misconceived-Prayer for dismissal of appeal as time-barred and for rescission of leave granting order refused with observation that applicant in appeal would be at liberty to raise question of limitation at time of hearing of appeal.-[Limitation].

(b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980-

0. V, r. I, item 15-Civil miscellaneous application for determina-

tion of question relating to court-fee by Supreme Court, held, against

- provisions of O. V, r. 1, item 15 of Rules-Power to determine question relating to Court-fees can be exercised by ,Registrar, Supreme Court-[Court-fee].

(e) supreme Court Rules, 1980-

0. V, r. 2 & O. XII--Indiscriminate filing of miscellaneous applications in Supreme Court particularly in manner that different causes are

joined .in. one application out of . which one or more is disposable by Supreme -Court, another by Registrar and yet another by Judge in chamber makes administration of justice by Supreme Court cumbersome and causes delay in disposal of regular petitions for leave to appeal and appeals-Parties and Advocates-on-Record advised for careful adherence to Supreme Court Aules.

M. Younis Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 16 and 21.

Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (L. Rs. of Nos. 9, 10 and 11).

Date of hearing : 4th June, 1983.

MUHAMMAD APZAL ZULLAH, J: This Civil Miscellaneous Application

(No. 73-P/82) arises out of grant of special leave to appeal in a land acquisition

case now Civil Appeal No. 11-P/80, It has been filed on behalf of the

respondents in the civil appeal with three-fold purposes-- -

(a) that the leave granting order be rescinded because, as asserted in this application, the appellants' petition for leave to appeal itself; -was barred by time ;

(b) that on grant of leave to appeal, the payment of the court-fee which according to the applicants was Rs. 2,000 was not duly made within,

as asserted, the period of limitation i.e. 30 days from the grant of the leave ; and

(c) that the interim order passed by this Court on 8-8-1979 and confirmed on 29-4-1980, should in any case be vacated.

Learned counsel admits that: the office treated the filing of the petition for leave to appeal as within the period of limitation. He, however, argued that the computation made by the office as also by the appellants illegally allowed the period for obtaining the copy of the grounds of appeal before the High Court as a period of exclusion under the Supreme Court Rules ; though according to him under the Limitation Act, this period could not have been excluded. He also argued that the appellants should in the circumstances of the case, have filed an application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the appellants on-the contrary argued that the petition for leave to appeal, was within time in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules.

The controversy about the limitation could have been more properl raised at the time of the hearing of the appeal because in case the preliminary

objection regarding limitation is overruled, the appeal should be heard and disposed of on the other points. The piecemeal hearing and disposal of appeal

as suggested by the learned counsel for the applicants is against the spirit o

the rules and the practice of this Court. The application in this behalf at

this stage is accordingly misconceived. The prayer for dismissal of the appeal

as time-barred and/or for the rescission of the leave grinting order is refused-

The applicants/respondents in the appeal would be at liberty to raise the

question of limitation at the time of the hearing of the appeal. -

.The second purpose for which this application has been filed for[ determination of a question relating to court-fee by the Court is also, to say 8 the least against the provision contained in- Order V, rule 1, item 15 ,

-1VV v v _ - _

whereunder the power in this behalf can be exercised by the Registrar. The, applicants should have moved the Registrar in this behalf. Instead ina

' misconceived application, which in any case was to be presented before th el Court, this additional cause of action has been misjoined.

At this stage it needs to be observed that indiscriminate filing of miscellaneous applications in the Supreme Court (particularly in a manner that different causes are joined in one application out of which one or more is disposable by Court ; another by the Registrar and yet another may be, by

learned Judge in Chamber in pursuance of the power under rule 2 of Order V will make the administration of justice by this Court, cumbersome in addition to the same causing delay in a disposal of regular petition for leave to appeal and the appeal. The parties and their A. O. Rs. would be well-advised foe careful adherence to the relevant rules.

The third purpose for which the application has been moved relates to the vacation of the stay order confirmed by another Bench of this Court in presence of the learned counsel for the respondents (the present applicants) ; the only difference now is that the counsel appearing for the applicants (respondents) is another gentleman. After hearing him on the question of vacation of the stay order, we find no justification for vacating the same. In so far as the payment of the amount to the parties is concerned, it is, however, directed that lest the party ultimately succeeding in the appeal is put to loss on, account of 'non-use of the amount concerned, the same shall be invested in the Khas Deposit to be made in the name of the Registrar of this Court. Disposal of amount of deposit and profits till the decision of the appeal by this Court, will follow the judgment/order therein. With this direction and the observations earlier made this miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

M. z, M, Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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