QADAR BAKHSH vs INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, PUNJAB And Other
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal against dismissal from service as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing an incompetent review application should have been condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal duly considered the application under section 5 and dismissed it on merits, finding no justification for filing the incompetent review application, and properly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay. The court laid down the principle that the discretionary refusal to condone delay by a tribunal upon proper consideration of merits does not warrant interference or leave to appeal when no point of law of general importance is involved, thereby affirming the dismissal of the time-barred appeal.
- Should the time spent pursuing an incompetent review application be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Does the refusal by a service tribunal to condone delay raise a point of law of general importance warranting leave to appeal?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 12-9-1983; whereby petitioner's appeal from the order of his dismissal, was held as the---barred and dismissed accordingly.
2. Learned counsel has contended that the the consumed in pursuing a review application (which further review admittedly was not competent) should have been condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. The Tribunal considered the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissed it on merits on the finding that there was no justification for filing the incompetent review application.
4. That being so the delay was not condoned. It is a simple case of exercise of jurisdiction one way or the other on proper consideration of the merits. No point of law of general importance is involved.
5. Leave to appeal is refused .