IBRAHIM And Others vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER_ COLLECTOR, VEHARI And Other
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal challenging a High Court order that dismissed writ petitions related to settlement matters, and subsequently dismissed the petitioners' Intra-Court Appeals (ICAs). The core legal questions were whether an Intra-Court Appeal was maintainable against the High Court's order in these settlement proceedings and whether the delay in filing the petitions for leave to appeal could be condoned. The Supreme Court held that the Intra-Court Appeals were not maintainable, affirming the High Court's view, based on the provisions of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitions were time-barred by 843 days. The Court established the principle that pursuing a wrong remedy in a wrong forum does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay under the law of limitation. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions due to the lack of maintainability of the ICAs and the unexplained, significant delay in filing the petitions.
- Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against a High Court order dismissing a writ petition in settlement matters under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
- Does pursuing a wrong remedy in a wrong forum constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
- Section 3(2), Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This order will dispose of (i) C.P.S. L.A. No. 1078/84 filed by Ibrahim etc.; and
(ii) C.P.S.L.A. No. 1080/84, filed by Muhammad Ayub etc., as they involve the same question and against the same order of the High Court, dated 22-5-1982 dismissing their writ petitions in settlement matters.
2. The aforementioned judgments were challenged by petitioners in both the petitions through I . C .
As. , which were dismissed on the ground that I.C.As. Did not lie in view of the provisions of section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance of 1972.
3. In their petitions the petitioners have only challenged the dismissal of their writ petitions by the High Court, but before us the learned counsel attempted to show that I.C.As., in fact, lay in the case in hand. But on examining the matter we find ourselves in respectful agreement with the view taken by the High Court namely that the I.C.As. Did not lie in these cases.
4. As for the impugned orders of the High Court dismissing petitioners' writ petitions the same are barred by as many as 843 days. We find that the petitioners had pursued the wrong remedy in the wrong forum and no sufficient ground has been shown for condonation of the delay. Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.