MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL RATHORE
This is a service matter arising from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government against the judgment of the Punjab Services Tribunal dated 13-11-1983, which had accepted the respondent's appeal. The core legal question raised was whether a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government is barred by time when a certified copy of the impugned judgment was already received by the petitioner through the Service Tribunal under rule 21(1) of the relevant rules, and whether the petitioner can still exclude the time spent in obtaining a fresh certified copy from the copying agency under section 12 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the case of first impression requires detailed consideration regarding the calculation of limitation and the applicability of section 12 of the Limitation Act when a copy has already been received directly from the Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that the statutory right to deduct time spent in obtaining a certified copy from the copying agency requires examination to determine if it is ousted by the receipt of an official copy under tribunal rules.
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal is barred by time if a certified copy was already received under rule 21(1) of the Tribunal rules?
- Can a party deduct the time spent in obtaining a fresh certified copy from the copying agency under section 12 of the Limitation Act when an official copy was already supplied by the Tribunal?
- Section 12, Limitation Act 1908
- Rule 21(1), Punjab Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN J.-This is a service matter. The appeal of Muhammad Iqbal Rathore was accepted by the Punjab Services Tribunal vide its judgment dated 13-11-1983.
The Government-petitioner has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the said judgment.
2. Respondent---s counsel submitted that the petition is barred by time. He urged that the petitioner had received a certified copy of the impugned judgment on 15-11-1983, but did not file the C. P. L. A. Till 24-1-1984. In order to cover up this lapse on its part, the petitioner applied for supply of the certified copy from the copying agency and on receiving the same on 14-1-1984, filed the C.P.L.A. He contended that the petitioner was guilty of mala fides in suppressing the fact that he was already in receipt of a certified copy of the impugned judgment sent to him by the Service Tribunal as required by rule 21 (1).
In support of this contention he referred to rule 21 which reads as under ; 21.-(1) The Tribunal shall, after the order is signed cause certified copies there to be sent under registered cover to the parties concerned and shall deliver a copy to the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan.
(2) Any party to the appeal may obtain additional copies of the order on payment of such legal fees as the Tribunal may from time to time fix, "
3. Respondent's counsel then produced before us a photostat copy of a Register maintained by the Office of Punjab Services Tribunal, the relevant column whereof shows that a copy of the impugned judgment was sent to it by the Services Tribunal in accordance with rule 21 of the afore-mentioned rules and was received in that office on 15-11-1983. He submitted that the appeal should have been filed within 60 days of the receipt of the afore--mentioned copy of the impugned judgment by the Government.
4. As against this, learned counsel for the Government-petitioner submits that section 12 of the Limitation Act, sub-rule (2) of rule 2, entitles it to apply and obtain a certified copy of the impugned judgment from the relevant Copying Agency and to file a petition within the prescribed period of limitation after deducting the days spent for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and that this right has not been taken away by the fact that a certified copy of the judgment was also received by the Government (petitioner) from the Service Tribunal concerned itself.
5. This is a case of first impression; and therefore, requires considera--tion. Leave is, therefore, granted on the above-noted contention.
If, however, the petitioner is found to have filed the petition within time, the matter will then be considered for grant of leave on merits.
To be argued on the same record with permission to file additional documents.