Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 479 of 1978, decided on 24th February, 1986.
(On appeal from judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑5‑1978 in I.C.A. No. 15 of 1977).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Intra‑Court appeal‑‑Petitioner's Intra‑Court Appeal dismissed in default‑‑Counsel for petitioner contending that High Court while dismissing Intra‑Court appeal took too technical view of bona fide omission of their counsel in seeking supplementary list‑‑Counsel in first instance taking up position that case was not mentioned in list supplied to Bar Room and that instead case was listed in a separate slip of paper containing its particulars as a single affixation in High Court Deorhi‑‑Such statement of fact was found to be incorrect by High Court who found that case of petitioner was listed in regular list typed on long sheet almost in its middle and that there was no question of its having been listed on a separate short slip of paper‑‑Petition for leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 24th February, 1986.
This petition is directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 27‑5‑1978 dismissing the Intra‑Court Appeal when the learned Judges refused to re‑admit the appeal dismissed in default.
2. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Judges while dismissing the Intra‑Court Appeal took too technical view of the bona fide omission of the counsel in seeking the supplementary list and that the learned Judges dismissed the I.C.A. on insufficient grounds specially when the case, on merits, was quite strong in view of the reasons given in the grounds of appeal.
3. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel. The learned counsel, in the first instance, has taken up the position that the case was not mentioned in the list supplied to the Bar Room which consists of long sheets which, in turn, contain cases listed in a continuous manner. According to him, the appeal I.C.A. No. 15 of 1977 was not included in the list supplied to the Bar Room. Instead, the case was listed in a separate slip of paper containing its particulars as a single affixation in the High Court Deorhi. This statement of fact was found to be incorrect by the learned High Court Judge. They found that the case I. C . A . 15 of 1977 was listed in the regular list typed on the long sheet almost in the middle of the sheet and, there was, therefore, no question of its having been listed on a separate short slip of paper. The learned Judges observed, in the impugned judgment, as follows:
"The list for 12th December could not, in normal routine, be supplied to the Bar Room on the same day. It must have been supplied earlier thereto. The case I . C . A . No. 15 of 1977 is typed on a sheet which contains cases of 12th of December also. This, therefore, is circumstantial support for the view that this. list must have been supplied the Bar Room earlier to 12‑12‑1977, and 11th being a holiday, it must have been supplied earlier to 11th and if that is so, it would be two days prior to 13‑12‑1977. Therefore, the rule relied upon by the learned counsel was complied with in so far as the fixing of the Appeal I. C . A . No. 15 of 1977 is concerned."
This being the factual position we do not consider that the petition needs consideration. Leave refused. Petition dismissed.
M.Y.H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer