GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND, Othersapplicants_Respondents vs SALEEM HUSSAIN GARDEZI
This matter concerns a service appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein the respondent sought clarification regarding the status of a stay order that had been granted previously but was inadvertently omitted from the subsequent leave order. The core legal question was whether the court could rectify an inadvertent omission in its own order to ensure the continuation of a stay of proceedings. The court held that, in the interest of justice, it possesses the inherent power to rectify such inadvertent omissions. Consequently, the court ordered that the stay order, originally granted on November 1, 1981, shall remain in force until the final decision of the appeal. The court also addressed and refused a request for an early hearing of the appeal. The principle laid down is that the court may exercise its authority to correct clerical or inadvertent omissions in its orders to prevent prejudice to the parties and to maintain the status quo during the pendency of litigation.
- Can the Supreme Court rectify an inadvertent omission in a leave order regarding the continuation of a stay?
- Does a stay order granted prior to the acceptance of a leave petition automatically continue if it is inadvertently omitted from the leave order?
- Is the court empowered to extend a stay order in the interest of justice during the pendency of a service appeal?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J -The controversy raised in this applica--tion, in a service appeal, is about the operation of a stay order against the applicant (respondent in appeal), prior to the acceptance of the leave petition. It was through an inadvertence that in the leave order, the stay order earlier granted was not extended.
2. The applicant tried to make use of the omission before the depart--mental authorities ; but without any success. He has, therefore, sought clarification. The learned counsel for the appellant has, on the other hand, requested that the omission may be rectified.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has, as put by him `candidly' accepted that it was an inadvertent omission. That being so we now in the interest of justice supply the same. The stay order granted on 1-11-1981 shall continue in force till the decision of the appeal.
4. The request of the learned counsel for the applicant for early hearing of the appeal, in the circumstances thereof, is refused.
Stay order extended.