Mst. KISHWAR SULTAN JEHAN BEGUM vs M. A. WASTI AND ANOTHER
The petitioner sought a review of a Supreme Court order dated 15th January 1978, dismissing a civil petition. The primary ground urged was that although the petition was heard by a three-member bench, the dismissal order was signed by only two judges, constituting an error on the face of the record and affecting the effective date of an offer made during proceedings. The Supreme Court acknowledged the omission regarding the signatures resulting from an official's negligence and agreed to rectify the error, but held that the petitioner's contention regarding the effective date of the offer was incorrect, as the offer was made in court prior to the dismissal which had taken effect from the original date. Furthermore, the review petition was barred by a delay of 318 days, which the Court condoned subject to all just exceptions. Ultimately, the review petition was dismissed.
- Does the omission of a judge's signature on a court order affect the effective date of a dismissal or an offer made during proceedings?
- Can a delay of over 300 days in filing a review petition be condoned subject to just exceptions?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioner seeks review of the order this Court dated 15th January, 1978, in Civil Petition No, 336 of 1977 by which it was dismissed.
2. ' The ground urged was that the petition was heard by a Bench comprised of the learned Chief Justice, myself and Safdar Shah, J., but the order is signed only by the learned Chief Justice and myself. In support of it he relied on the cause list No, 10 of 1979, in which this petition and the connected Civil Petition 67 of 1977, were listed for hearing before this Bench ; and while the order in Civil Petition No, 67 of 1977 was signed by the three Judges, the order in question was not so signed.
3. This commission, according to the learned counsel, is an error on the face of the order, and, therefore, the offer recited in it could not be effective from the date of the dismissal of the petition but from the date on which the error is rectified. So far as the error is concerned, we agree with him which will be rectified but we do not agree with his further contention as the offer was made in Court before the dismissal of the petition which bad taken effect as from that date.
4. ' On the cover of the original file we find that only two Judges were noted to have heard the petition which is an abvious omission resulting from the negligence of the official who recorded the note.
5. He should be called upon to explain as to why he had committed this serious lapse.
6. ' The petition is also barred by 318 days but we condoned the delay subject to all just exceptions.
7. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.