Pakistan Case Law
2009 CLD 171

Messrs S. MALIK TRADERS and anothers vs SAUDI PAK LEASING COMPANY LTD.

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2009 CLD 171
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Appeal No,12 of 2008
Date2008-09-23
Judge(s)Anwar Zaheer Jamali
ResultApplication dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arose before the High Court of Sindh as an appeal initially instituted under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and subsequently amended into an appeal under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001. The core legal issue before the Court was whether the appeal was maintainable having been filed past the prescribed period of limitation, and whether the delay could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. Upon examining the certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree, the Court computed the limitation period from the date the decree was signed and excluded the two days spent obtaining the certified copies. Following this calculation, the appeal was found to remain time-barred by one day. The High Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 does not apply to appeals preferred under special statutes such as the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is applicable to an appeal preferred under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001?
  • Whether an appeal under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 can be entertained if it is time-barred by one day after excluding time spent obtaining certified copies?
  • Can delay in filing an appeal under a special financial recovery statute be condoned under general limitation provisions?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
  • Section 22, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001
  • Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001Section 22 appeallimitationcondonation of delaySection 5 Limitation Actspecial statutecomputation of limitationtime-barred appeal

ORDER

' On 19-9-2008 when this appeal was taken up for Katcha Peshi the following order was passed:-- "Perusal of case record reveals that initially this appeal was filed by the appellants on 3-10-2007 as appeal under section 100, C.P.C. But later on, it was amended as appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. It seems that the impugned judgment in the appeal was passed on 18-8-2008 and decree was accordingly framed on 31-8-2007, while two days' time was consumed in obtaining its certified true copy (24th and 25th of September, 2007).

' The above factual position is indicative of the fact that this appeal is barred by limitation. Learned counsel is called upon to satisfy this Court on this aspect of this appeal.

' To come up on 23-9- 2008."

2. Today, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance gone through the certified copy of the judgment and decree placed on record by the appellant. It shows that if the period of limitation is computed from the date of signing of decree and the period consumed in obtaining certified true copy of the judgment and the decree i,e, two days is also excluded still the appeal is time-barred by one day. This being the position and considering the fact that section 5 of the Limitation Act is also not applicable to this appeal, having been preferred under a special statute, it is dismissed being time-barred.

Cited by 15 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.