Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 130‑K of 1984, decided on 12th February, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 5‑1‑1984 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 52 of 1978) .

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal grant of‑‑Pleadings‑‑Supreme Court declined to go into question not raised before High Court‑‑It was not sufficient to just mention a ground in written objections filed in Court but point had also to be specifically asserted and argued before Court‑ Leave to appeal refused.

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Contentions raised having been duly considered by High Court and findings recorded in relation thereto being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.

S.A. Sarwana, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Shabbir Ghoury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

S. M. Gharib Nawaz Daccawala, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 12th February, 1986.

The petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Appeal in the Sind High Court under section 64 of the Social security Ordinance challenging the order of the Social Security Court, dated 21‑6‑1978, which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.

2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent's appeal under section 59 of the Social Security Ordinance was incompetent before the Social Security Court in the absence of "proper decision" under section 57 of the Ordinance.

It appears from the impugned judgment that no such ground was raised before the High Court and, therefore, we are not inclined to go into this question. This contention was also not raised before the Social Security Court as it finds no mention in the order of the said Court, dated 21‑6‑1978. Learned counsel invited our attention to the objections filed before the Social Security Court which did contain objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that there existed no decision of the institution under section 57 of the Ordinance. Be that as it may, it is not sufficient to just mention a ground in the written objections filed in the Court but the point has also to be specifically asserted and argued before the Court. Precisely this was not done. The petitioner also did not complain in their memo of appeal before the High Court that the Tribunal had refused to go into this question although the point was argued before it.

3. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were duly considered and the findings recorded in relation thereto are unexceptionable. We, therefore, find no substance in this petition which is dismissed accordingly.

M.I. 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.