SHAFQAT ULLAH. TUNIO vs PIA (PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES)
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the computation of limitation and whether the petition was barred by time. The court held that the petition was patently barred by nine days, as the impugned judgment was dispatched to the petitioner via registered post well within time, and no valid application for enlargement of time explaining the delay was made despite office objections raised years prior. The key principle laid down is that a petition filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation without a proper and timely application seeking condonation of delay or enlargement of time is untenable and liable to be dismissed.
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation can be entertained without an application for enlargement of time?
- Does the issuance of a second copy of a judgment by the tribunal extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court?
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---At the very outset this petition is barred by 9 days. The impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 28-8-2002 was dispatched to the petitioner through registered post vide a covering letter, dated 7-9-2002 available at page 50 of the Paper Book. Even in the prayer clause of the memo. Of petition Advocate-On-Record has specifically stated that the leave to appeal may be granted against the judgment, dated 28-8-2002 communicated through covering letter, dated 7-9-2002. Instant petition for leave to appeal was, however, presented in the office of this Court on 5-11-2002.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the title of the judgment sheet available at page 19 of the Paper Book attempted to persuade us that this copy was actually dispatched on 29-10- 2002 but the endorsement at the top of the page "1st Copy issued on 7-9-2002" by the Assistant Registrar of Federal Service Tribunal clearly shows that it was made by office of Federal Service Tribunal while issuing second copy to the petitioner on 29-10-2002 and otherwise there was no occasion for making such endorsement.
3. Learned counsel insisted that copy of the letter, dated 7-9-2002 was handed over to the petitioner on 29-10-2002 along with copy of judgment but there is no evidence to this effect. Even otherwise this fact per se would not enlarge the period of limitation for filing petition before this Court. Examining the case in the light of the facts and circumstances the office appears to be right in pointing out that the petition filed before this Court is patently barred by 9 days.
4. It is ironical to note that despite timely written notice to the learned Advocate-On-Record by office pointing out that the petition was barred by 9 days no efforts were made to move an application seeking enlargement of time explaining the facts and grounds for delay. After the lapse of 2-1/2 years Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi now requests for time tt, move an application for enlargement of time which is untenable on the face of it.
5. No ground for extension of time is thus made out. Resultantly petition is dismissed as barred by time.