EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs Mian IQBAL MAHMOOD AND Other
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed by the Evacuee Trust Property Board against a High Court order dismissing its settlement appeal. The High Court had dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had become infructuous because the underlying matter was currently sub judice before a departmental forum under newly enacted legislation. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed three days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, attributing it to an error by a departmental functionary regarding the filing of necessary documents. The Supreme Court rejected this explanation, finding it insufficient to warrant a special concession for the extension of time. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's reasoning that the matter remained pending before the appropriate departmental forum, where the petitioner retained the opportunity to raise its arguments. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of being time-barred and because the underlying dispute was already being addressed in the proper administrative forum.
- Is an error by a departmental functionary regarding the filing of documents a sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
- Can an appeal be dismissed as infructuous if the subject matter is currently sub judice before a departmental forum?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court dated 6-12-1978, whereby settlement appeal No. 7/69 filed by the petitioner was dismissed inter alia on the ground that the matter at this juncture was pending before the Federal Government and as such the appeal in the High Court had become infructuous. The actual passage in the High Court judgment reads as follows : "Therefore, it would follow that because of the subsequent proceedings, after the order appealed against, which are being carried under the newly enacted law and are sub judice, these appeals have become infructuous. These are, therefore, dismissed as such but in the cir--cumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs."
2. The petition is barred by three days. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay pleading that it was due to some wrong view of a departmental functionary in the matter of filing a copy of the judgment under appeal or a copy of the grounds of appeal in the High Court.
The plea advanced in our opinion is not sufficient to show any special concession to the petitioner in the matter of extension of time.
3. The petition is dismissed as time-barred and also because as held by the High Court that the matter is again sub judice before .a departmental forum, where the petitioner will have the opportunity to take up whatever pleas it may like to urge in this case.
4. The petition is consequently dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD JAFAR vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS 1983 PLD Peshawar 134