DADA STEEL MILLS vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed a review petition filed by the appellant solely on the ground of being time-barred. The appellant contended that the review petition was filed within the period of limitation, after excluding the time spent obtaining a certified copy of the judgment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the review petition as time-barred, particularly given the office's erroneous demand for a certified copy and an application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's dismissal was improper. It affirmed that a certified copy of the judgment is not a mandatory requirement for filing a review application in the same court. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the time spent obtaining a copy of the judgment is excludable in computing the limitation period, even if that copy is not filed with the review application. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits.
- Is a certified copy of the judgment required to be filed with a review application in the same court?
- Can the time spent obtaining a copy of a judgment be excluded in computing the limitation period for a review application even if the copy is not filed?
- Does an erroneous demand by a court office for a certified copy justify the dismissal of a review petition on the grounds of limitation?
ORDER
1. ABDUL QADIR SHAIKH, J.--This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of Baluchistan High Court, dated 9-7-1980, dismissing a petition filed by the petitioner for review of the earlier judgment of the same High Court, dated 30-4-1978. The High Court dismissed the review petition solely on the ground that it was barred by time.
2. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court by the order, dated 23-8-1982 which may be reproduced hereunder: "It has, inter alia, been contended that the petition for review was within limitation on 28-5-1978 when it was filed and, accordingly, there was no necessity to file any application for condonation of delay. In this connection, it is submitted that the order of the High Court was orally announced on 27-4-1978 and the petitioner filed an application for grant of the certified copy of the judgment on the very same day viz. 27-4-1978. The copy was supplied on 8-5-1978 and the review application was filed on 28-5-1978, namely, within 20 days, after deducting the days spent on obtaining the copy.
3. The review application when filed on 28-5-1978 was, of course, not accompanied with the certified copy of the judgment whereupon the office wrongly demanded that a certified copy of the judgment alongwith an application for condonation of delay be filed.' To comply with this illegal demand the petitioner submitted the certified copy and also filed an application for condonation of delay which was led to all sorts of problems. Be that as it may the demand by the office that a certified copy of the judgment be submitted was not justified because this is not necessary in the case of a review application being filed in the same Court In this connection, reliance is placed on Jowand Singh v. Ala Singh AIR 1938 Lah. 295. As far the submission that days spent in obtaining the copy of the judgment can be excluded in computing the period of limitation even though the copy of the judgment is not filed along with an application for review, reliance is placed on Wali Muhammad and others v. Wali Muhammad and, another PLD 1974 SC 56.
4. After, hearing the learned counsel for the parties we feel no hesitation that the reasons which prevailed with this Court to grant leave to appeal must equally apply for allowing this appeal. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court for decision of the review petition filed by the petitioners on merits in accordance with the law. In the circumstances parties are left to bear their own costs.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. LAL KHATOON and 8 others vs Mst. SAHATI and 2 others 2005 PLD Karachi 327