MUHAMMAD TUFAIL DANISH vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, F.I.A. And Another
The petitioner, a former Constable, challenged his removal from service by the Deputy Director, F.I.A. After his departmental appeal was rejected, he approached the Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed thirteen days beyond the statutory limitation period and held that incorrect legal advice provided by counsel does not constitute valid grounds for condoning delay. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the delay should have been condoned. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner admitted the appeal was time-barred and that the Service Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay based on the erroneous advice of counsel. Citing Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the Court affirmed that any appeal filed beyond the prescribed period must be dismissed. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that no question of law was involved, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that wrong legal advice does not extend the period of limitation.
- Does incorrect legal advice from a counsel constitute sufficient grounds to condone a delay in filing an appeal?
- What is the consequence under Section 3 of the Limitation Act when an appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
- Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal solely on the grounds of limitation?
- Section 3 of the Limitation Act
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner was serving as a Constable when he was removed from service by Deputy Director, F.IA. His appeal to the departmental authority was rejected.
Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the question of limitation. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:-- "There is question of limitation which was taken notice of at the stage of admission. The delay was condoned only for the purpose of admission on the basis of an affidavit of Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Zulfiqar Advocate that he rendered advice to the appellant that the period of limitation for filing the appeal was 120 days. Intimation of the dismissal of the appellant's departmental appeal was communicated to the appellant under letter dated 25-11-1986. This appeal was filed on 8-1-1987.
Thus the appeal was filed after thirteen days of the period of limitation. The wrong advice rendered by an advocate did not save the period of limitation and the delay in preferring the appeal is not condonable."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the admission order wherein the Court condoned the delay only for the purpose of admission of the appeal without prejudice to the question of limitation if agitated by the respondent's side. The learned counsel submitted that the respondents had not filed the written statement. He also referred to para. 4 of the impugned judgment by which the side of the respondents was closed as the Inspector who had appeared on behalf of the respondents had no instructions. In this petition, the petitioner has admitted that he had filed a time-barred appeal barred by 19 days and this was done so because the petitioner had been advised by his counsel. The Service Tribunal has taken notice of this fact. A wrong advice of counsel does A not extend the period of limitation. The Tribunal had not condoned the delay.
Under section 3 of the Limitation Act, if a suit or an appeal filed beyond the, period of limitation, the suit or the appeal has to be dismissed.
3. No question of law is involved in this petition. The petition has no force and the same is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 18 cases
- M/S Fly Dubai vs Syed Yawar Hussain 2025 SHC KHI 1558
- FLY DUBAI Versus Syed YAWAR HUSSAIN 2026 CLC 334
- Sharif Polani, Sohail Polani vs SITE and Others, SITE and Others 2023 SHC 1144
- Ali Mardan Shah & Others vs Mushtaque & Others 2023 SHC 858, 2024 PLD Sindh 121
- MUHAMMAD AMIR vs MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ and another 2019 CLD 523
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD through L.Rs, and others vs Mst. FAZAL BIBI and others- 2016 SCP 61, 2016 PLD Supreme Court 872
- GHULAM AULIA Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary 2015 PLC(CS) 1149
- CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY through Director-General vs JAVED AHMAD and another 2009 PLC (C.S.) 679
- CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY through Director-General Versus JAVED AHMAD 2009 SCMR 956
- M.C. TANK through Town Nazim Town II, Tank and anothers vs WARIS KHAN 2005 CLC 154
- ENGINEER NARAINDAS and another vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others 2002 SCMR 82
- ABDUL AZIZ GORMANI vs REGIONAL MANAGER AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 2000 PLC (C.S.) 291
- SAIF ALI Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN 2000 PLC(CS) 287
- Muhammad Essa Bhutto And 38 Other vs M/S. Port Qasim Authority And K.L.R. 2009 Labour & Service Cases 16
- KHALID KARIM CHAUDHRY and others vs THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and 3 others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1113
- Mrs. SOHAILA SHAHZAD vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 4 others 2011 PLJ Karachi 174
- Khushi Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs. (in C.A.2564_2001) and 7 others vs Mst. Fazal Bibi etc. (in C.A.2564_2001)and 7 others 2016 SCP 61
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ MINHAS vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, PAKISTAN RANGERS 2017 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 9