MULLAH AHMED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, Sibi And 7 Other
This appeal by leave is directed against two judgments of the Baluchistan High Court whereby a constitution petition and a subsequent review petition filed by the appellant were dismissed. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeal against the primary judgment dismissing the constitution petition was time-barred. The appellant's counsel conceded this position and sought condonation of delay, but the oral submissions failed to establish valid justification, leading the Supreme Court to treat the appeal as time-barred regarding that order. Concerning the second impugned order which dismissed the review application, the Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning legally sound and unexceptionable. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
- Whether oral submissions for the condonation of delay constitute sufficient justification when an appeal is time-barred?
- Can an appeal be maintained against a judgment when it is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
- Whether a High Court's dismissal of a review application warrants interference by the Supreme Court when based on sound legal reasoning?
ORDER
1. ABDUL QADIR SHAIKH, J.--This appeal by leave is directed against the two judgments of the Baluchistan High Court, dated ltt-6-1981 and 2-11-1981, by the former judgment, a constitution petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and by the latter, review petition filed by him also met with the same fate.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents raised the preliminary objection that although the appeal is within time so as the judgment, dated 2-11-1981 is concerned, it is totally time-barred against the judgment, dated 10-6-1981. This position is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant who, however, prays that the delay may be condoned. The oral submissions made by him for the condonation of the delay do not make out valid justification for the condonation, we therefore, treat this appeal as time-barred against the impugned order of the High Court, dated 10-6-1981 by which constitution petition was dismissed.
3. So far as impugned order of the High Court, dated 2-11-1981 is concerned, we find that the High Court has dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner for the reasons with which no exception in law can be taken. The appeal, therefore, has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
4. The parties are left to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 7 cases
- Muhammad Anwar (Decd.) through his LRs. etc vs Essa and others 2022 PSC 1394
- Muhammad Anwar (deed) through L.Rs. and others vs Essa and others 2022 PLD Supreme Court 716
- Ahtisham Elahi and another vs Insram Elahi, and another 2020 PLJ Lahore 354
- MAHMOOD HUSSAIN LARIK and others vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED 2009 SCMR 857
- MAHMOOD HUSSAIN LARIK and 2 others vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK 2011 PLC 307
- MUHAMMAD NAEEM Versus GENERAL MANAGER, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK CIRCLE OFFICE, QUETTA and another 2007 PLC(CS) 580
- Iftikhar Ahmed vs All Gohar Mataro & 18 others 2004 C.L.R. 1394