Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 1797

SHAH JAHAN vs SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, N.W.F.P. and 32 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 1797
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,163-R of 1988
Date1989-05-14
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a service appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal on the grounds of limitation and merits. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's service appeal before the Tribunal was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appeal was indeed time-barred and correctly dismissed on that sole ground, rendering any examination of the merits unnecessary. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that when an appeal before a tribunal is established to be time-barred, the tribunal's dismissal on that ground alone is legally sufficient, obviating the need to enter into the merits of the case.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a service appeal dismissed by a Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation warrants interference when found to be time-barred?
  • Is it necessary for an appellate court to examine the merits of a case after determining that the underlying appeal was barred by limitation?
service appeallimitationtime-barred appealleave to appealservice tribunal

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--A service appeal having been dismissed by N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal on grounds of limitation as well as on merits; leave to appeal has now been sought on both points.

2. We, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on question of limitation at some length, are satisfied that the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred and it merited to be dismissed on this ground alone. There is no need to examine points on merits. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.