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 Appeal No. 78‑K of 1982, decided on 3rd May, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment of Baluchistan High Court, Quetta, dated 9‑7‑1980, in Revision Appeal No. 1 of 1978).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Limitation‑‑Petition for review of High Court judgment not accompanied with certified copy of impugned judgment‑‑Office demanding certified copy alongwith application for condonation of delay‑‑Compliance with such demand leading to problems‑‑Plea raised that demand by office that a certified copy of judgment be submitted was not justified because review application was being filed in same Court‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider plea and appeal accepted for same reasons which prevailed for grant of leave to appeal‑‑Case remanded for decision of review petition on merits..
Jowand Singh v. Ala Singh A I R 1938 Lah. 295 rel.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.12‑‑Limitation‑‑Petition for review of judgment of High Court not accompanied with certified copy of impugned judgment‑‑Contention that days spent in obtaining copy of judgment can be excluded in computing period of limitation even though copy of said judgment is not filed alongwith application for review‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider such plea and appeal accepted for same reasons which prevailed for grant of leave to appeal‑ Case remanded for decision of review petition on merits.
Wali Muhammad and others v. Wali Muhammad and another P L D 1974 S C 56 rel.
S.M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1986.
This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of Baluchistan High Court, dated 9‑7‑1980, dismissing a petition filed by the petitioner for review of the earlier judgment of the same High Court, dated 30‑4‑1978. The High Court dismissed the review petition solely on the ground that it was barred by time.
Leave to appeal was granted by this Court by the order, dated 23‑8‑1982 which may be reproduced hereunder:
"It has, inter alia, been contended that the petition for review was within limitation on 28‑5‑1978 when it was filed and, accordingly, there was no necessity to file any application for condonation of delay. In this connection, it is submitted that the order of the High Court was orally announced on 27‑4‑1978 and the petitioner filed an application for grant of the certified copy of the judgment on the very same day viz. 27‑4‑1978. The copy was supplied on 8‑5‑1978 and the review application was filed on 28‑5‑1978, namely, within 20 days, after deducting the days spent on obtaining the copy.
The review application when filed on 28‑5‑1978 was, of course, not accompanied with the certified copy of the judgment whereupon the office wrongly demanded that a certified copy of the judgment alongwith an application for condonation of delay be filed.' To comply with this illegal demand the petitioner submitted the certified copy and also filed an application for condonation of delay which was led to all sorts of problems. Be that as it may the demand by the office that a certified copy of the judgment be submitted was not justified because this is not necessary in the case of a review application being filed in the same Court In this connection, reliance is placed on Jowand Singh v. Ala Singh A I R 1938 Lah. 295. As far the submission that days spent in obtaining the copy of the judgment can be excluded in computing the period of limitation even though the copy of the judgment is not filed along with an application for review, reliance is placed on Wali Muhammad and others v. Wali Muhammad and, another P L D 1974 S C 56.
After, hearing the learned counsel for the parties we feel no hesitation that the reasons which prevailed with this Court to grant leave to appeal must equally apply for allowing this appeal. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court for decision of the review petition filed by the petitioners on merits in accordance with the law. In the circumstances parties are left to bear their own costs.
M. I. Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer