ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL SINDH, KARACHI and 3 others vs SHARIF AHMED
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioners' revision application in limine. The respondent, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, had faced a ten-year delay in receiving his G.P. Fund from the Accountant-General of Sindh. After successfully securing the payment through a constitutional petition, the respondent filed a civil suit for damages and compensation for the delay, which was decreed in his favour. The petitioners' subsequent appeal was dismissed as time-barred by ten months, and their revision application before the High Court was also dismissed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the appellate and revisional courts erred in refusing to condone the ten-month delay. The Court held that the appeal was patently time-barred and that the courts below had rightly refused condonation in the absence of any justifiable reason. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts and refused leave to appeal.
- Whether a delay of ten months in filing an appeal can be condoned without showing any justifiable reason?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts on the issue of limitation should be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of justification?
' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order dated 24-9-2003 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby Revision Application No, 218 of 2003 filed by petitioners was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts in brief giving, rise to the filing of instant petition are that respondent Sharif Ahmed Sub-Inspector of Sindh Police was sent on deputation to Federal Investigating Agency till 20-9-1979 from where he was, repatriated and retired as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 5-2-1983. Since he did not succeed in getting his G.P. Fund from petitioner. No,1 Accountant-General of Sindh for about ten years, as such, he invoked the constitutional, jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh by filing Constitution Petition No, D-2841 of 1993 which was allowed and petitioner No, 1 was directed to pay G.P. Fund within thirty days which was accordingly paid.
3. Respondent however, feeling still not satisfied, filed suit for damages/compensation to the tune of Rs,3,00,000 on 1-12-1994 against petitioners which was decreed vide judgment dated 13-12-2000 by learned 3rd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South. Petitioners preferred appeal against the said judgment which was dismissed as time-barred vide order dated 6-8-2002 by 3rd Additional District Judge, Karachi (South). The said order was challenged in revision application before the learned High Court of Sindh which too was dismissed vide the impugned order
4. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that respondent in fact had received the entire claim of his G.P. Fund, as such, was not justified to file suit for compensation. According to him, the learned Appellate Court, as well as the learned Revisional Court, had erred in appreciating the explanation furnished for condoning the delay of ten months in filing of appeal but non-suited petitioners only on technical ground.
6. The appeal filed by the petitioners on the face of it was barred by ten months and was thus rightly dismissed or that ground. Finding co justifiable reason, the learned High Court also rightly maintained the decision of the Appellate Court.
7. Thus, there being concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below on the above aspect, we do not find any justification to interfere with the same.
8. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.