Pakistan Case Law
1990 SCMR 1461

INDRIYAS GILL vs THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EDUCATION

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1990 SCMR 1461
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 293 of 1985
Date1989-05-16
Judge(s)Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan
Authored byGhulam Mujaddid
ResultPetition allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This civil petition arose from a judgment of the Service Tribunal where the petitioner's application for the condonation of delay was not considered. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal is required to consider and decide an application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 before disposing of the main matter. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and noting the concession of the Advocate-General that the application ought to have been considered, converted the petition into an appeal and allowed the same. The Court held that the Service Tribunal must explicitly consider and dispose of an application for condonation of delay in accordance with the law. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for a proper determination of the limitation issue.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is the Service Tribunal required to consider and decide an application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can an order of the Service Tribunal be sustained if it fails to address a pending application for condonation of delay?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
condonation of delaylimitationService Tribunalremandcivil appeal

ORDER

1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner who laid great stress on the fact that the petitioner had submitted an application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal which was not considered because there is no mention of that in the impugned judgment.

2. ' We sent for the Advocate-General to make sure as to what was the stance of the respondent. He submitted that the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to have been considered.

3. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal, allow the same and direct that the Tribunal shall dispose of the application under section 5 for condonation of delay in accordance with law.

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