Find a Lawyer

Case No. 16/65 of 1977, decided on 7th February, 1983.

-- S.8-Limitation-Matter involved pending before High Court- High Court passing abatement order -- Appeal before Tribunal filed not within 90 days of abatement order but after 2 years thereof-No application for condonation of delay presented -Appeal, in circumstances, dismissed as time-barred.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Haroun-ur-Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

-Khizar Hayat Khan, S.-I. has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in the year 1977. The case remained pending for various reasons and ultimately admitted on 12th April, 1978 to regular hearing., On 30th August, 1979 Mr. A. G. Hamayun, Government Pleader, pointed out that the appellant appears to have filed Writ Petition No. 1667 of 1973, challenging his de-confirmation by the order of D. 1. G., dated 1st November, 1912 and order, dated 31st May, 1973. This Tribunal was also informed by the Government Pleader that the said writ petition had abated under the orders of Lahore High Court on 17th July, 1974. In this manner the learned Government Pleader brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the appeal was grossly barred by time as the appellant was required to come to this Tribunal within 90 days of the abatement order passed, by 21st January, 1975 at the latest. The case was adjourned and the parties were required to produce the said writ petition in order to settle the matter of limitation. However, on 13th December, 1979 learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he had no instructions from the appellant since the appellant had been confined to judicial lock-up in a murder case in which he was involved. This Tribunal, vide its judgment on the fixed date, passed the following order :----

"Learned Counsel is therefore, not in a position to contact him and have instructions from the appellant. In these circumstances the appeal is consigned to the record. In case the appellant is acquitted in the criminal case, he may have this appeal revived. Announced in the presence of the parties."

In consequence thereof the case was consigned to the Record Room. It was on 11th April, 1982 that Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, learned counsel for the appellant filed an application for the revival of the appeal on the strength of the order of this Tribunal so quoted above. The appeal, was thus revived and has come up before us for regular hearing.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case with their assistance.

3. Learned District Attorney has come up with a preliminary objection and has submitted that the issue of time limit raised by his predecessor on 30th August, 1979 remained undecided as Writ Petition No. 1667 of 1973, referred to by him, has still to be placed by the parties on the record. According to the learned District Attorney the present appeal is hopelessly time-barred as once the writ petition had abated, it was incumbent upon the appellant to come to this Tribunal within 90 days of the abatement order which was passed on 21st January, 1975 whereas the appellant filed this appeal in the year 1977. In this manner the appeal was barred by at least two years from the date of said abatement order and was barred by 4 years from the date of ultimate order, dated 31st May, 1973.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he made submission before this Tribunal at the time when the appeal was consigned to Record Room, by pointing out that the appeal was well in time because fresh cause of action had accrued in his favour by virtue of Annexure A. We have consulted the record and find that Annexure 'A' so quoted in the said consignment order of this Tribunal, seems to be a clerical mistake as the said annexure on the record pertained to the events of 1968. However, we have ourselves taken pains to dig out the correct document to which a reference was made by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Tribunal on 30th August, 1979 and find the said document is Annexure K'. This document is an order of Mr. Abdul Qayyum, D. I. G., Multan Range and is dated 22nd October, 1975. The appellant had actually filed further representation against the said order which he was not competent to do so because Annexure 'K' being order of Mr. Abdul Qayyum, D. I. G., Multan Range, Multan, was final order for the purpose of his appeal and he should have come to this Tribunal after the said order had been passed and he was given personal hearing by the said authority.

5. In view of the above we are fully satisfied that the appellant did not file appeal before this Tribunal within 90 days of the abatement of the writ petition or within 30 days after the order, dated 22nd October. 1975 passed by the D. I. G. Police, Multan Range, Multan, which was for all purposes within his knowledge as he had appeared before him. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal filed by the appellant in the year 1977 is hopelessly barred by time as we further find that no application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed and is not available on the record to persuade us to condone this inordinate delay.

6. The result is we dismiss the appeal as barred by time. However, there will be no order as to costs. To be communicated to the parties.

A. E. 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.