AMIR DIN AND 2 Others vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 5 Other
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition seeking to challenge an order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Bahawalpur dated 5th November 1974, which dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal on merits in the absence of the parties and their counsel. The petition was barred by 64 days, and the petitioners contended that limitation should run from the date of knowledge since they were unaware of the disposal. The core legal question was whether the period of limitation for filing the appeal should start from the date of knowledge when notice of the hearing had been sent by registered post. The Supreme Court held that the petition must be dismissed, noting that notice was duly sent by registered post acknowledgment due, raising a statutory presumption of service under the General Clauses Act, which remained unrebutted as the counsel failed to file an affidavit denying service. The key principle laid down is that the presumption of due service of notice sent by registered post stands unless effectively rebutted by proper evidence.
- Does the period of limitation for an appeal start from the date of knowledge when a party claims ignorance of a judgment passed in their absence?
- What is the effect of sending a hearing notice by registered post acknowledgment due regarding the presumption of its receipt?
- Is an assertion of non-service sufficient without a supporting affidavit from the counsel?
- General Clauses Act
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN J.-L. P. A. 654 of 1966 which was transferred to Bahawalpur Circuit was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Bahawalpur on filth November, 1974 on merits. Neither the party was present nor did their counsel appear on that date. This petition seeks to challenge the order of the High Court.
2. The petition is barred by 64 days arid it has been submitted before us that since neither the counsel nor the party knew that the case had been disposed of without hearing, the period of limitation for appeal should start from the date of the knowledge.
3. We are afraid we do not see eye to eye with the submission of the learned counsel, for the judgment of the High Court very clearly states that notice was sent to learned counsel for the petitioners on 22nd of October, 1974 by registered post acknowledgment due. There is a presumption under the General Clauses Act that if this has been done the notice would be deemed to have been duly received by the addressee. The learned counsel has not even filed an affidavit on his own in support of the assertion that he was not served.
4. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others Versus ABBAS ALI SHAH 2007 SCMR 1105