Pakistan Case Law
2011 PLD 961

Ch. MUHAMMAD ILYAS GUJJAR Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF PAKISTAN

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2011 PLD 961
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Judge(s)Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Mian Shakirullah Jan, Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, Tariq Pervez, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a judgment of a single judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. The Supreme Court raised a preliminary question regarding the maintainability of the petition for leave to appeal, observing that an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 was competent before a Division Bench of the High Court against the impugned judgment. The petitioner raised a concern regarding the bar of limitation in filing an ICA at this stage. Relying on precedent, the Supreme Court held that the petition was not maintainable due to the availability of the remedy of an Intra-Court Appeal. However, observing that the petitioner had been diligently pursuing his remedy, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with an observation that the High Court may favourably consider an application for condonation of delay, subject to all just exceptions. The principle re-affirmed is that where an Intra-Court Appeal lies against a single judge's order under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, a direct petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is not maintainable.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable before the Supreme Court when an Intra-Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 lies against the High Court single bench order?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant observations for favorable consideration of condonation of delay when directing a party to pursue an Intra-Court Appeal?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 3, Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
intra-court appealmaintainabilitycondonation of delaywrit petitionLaw Reforms Ordinance 1972limitation

ORDER

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 3rd March, 2010 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. As the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner has been decided by a learned Single Bench of the High Court, therefore, after taking facts from the learned counsel, we have asked him to satisfy the Court about maintainability of instant petition because, prima facie, we were of the opinion that against the impugned judgment ICA under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 was competent before the High Court. In this view of the matter, learned counsel stated that question of limitation would be a hurdle in his way. However, it was pointed out to him that in Accountant General for Pakistan v. Zia Mohy-ud-Din (PLD 2008 SC 164), this Court has observed that the question of limitation shall be considered if the application for condonation of delay is filed, but as we have noted that petitioner has been pursuing his remedy, as is evident from the facts and circumstances, therefore, we are inclined to make an observation that subject to all just exceptions, ICA bench, seized with the matter, may examine the question of limitation, in filing of ICA by the petitioner, favourably.

3. Learned counsel appearing for Caveat has raised objection upon making of such observation by this Court but since, as it has been noted hereinabove, the petitioner has been pursuing his remedy before this Court as well as before the High Court, therefore, by using the words c 'subject to all just exceptions' we have allowed the respondent to raise question qua the limitation, but the Court will consider it, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, favourably.

Petition stands disposed of with the above observation.

M.A.K./M-84/S Order accordingly.

Cited by 10 cases

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