Haji GHULAM SARWAR vs DAYA RAM
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against an order of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court, which refused to re-admit an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question concerns the computation of the limitation period for filing an application to restore an appeal dismissed in default, and whether a counsel's engagement in the Senate constitutes a privilege extending to professional work to excuse non-appearance, as well as whether limitation runs from the date of knowledge or the date of dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the privilege of a Senator cannot be extended to professional work, that no proper intimation of unavailability was given, and that limitation under Article 168 of the Limitation Act begins to run from the date of dismissal, not from the date of knowledge. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that statutory limitation periods and rules of procedure must be strictly adhered to.
- Does a counsel's pre-occupation or participation in a session of the Senate extend as a privilege to professional court work?
- Does the limitation period for applying to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution run from the date of the dismissal or the date of knowledge?
- Can time under Article 168 of the Limitation Act be computed from the date the petitioner came to know about the dismissal?
- Article 168, Limitation Act 1908
1. ' HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for Special Leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of Sind & Baluchistan High Court, refusing to re-admit an appeal for hearing after the same had been dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. ' The application for restoration of the appeal itself was barred by limitation, as it had been filed after the lapse of the 30 days' period provided by Article 168 of the Limitation Act.
3. ' The only contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition is that the limitation should have been computed from the date the petitioner came to know about the dismissal which, according to his statement in his affidavit, is 9-1-1974.
4. ' The learned counsel, engaged to appear for the petitioner, it is said, could not appear on that date as he was busy attending a session of the Senate at Islamabad. He claims that he had also sent a telegram to the Court requesting for an adjournment.
5. ' The contention that as the learned counsel was attending the session of the Senate, he was entitled to any privilege, is entirely misconceived. 4 It is a personal privilege and this privilege cannot be extended to professional work.
6. ' The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as found by the High Court, did not also intimate to the High Court either by telegram or otherwise that he would not be available at the time of the hearing of the appeal due to his pre-occupation with the work of the Senate.
7. ' Again, under Article 168 of the Limitation Act, the time, as rightly held by the High Court, begins to run from the date of the dismissal and not from the date of the knowledge of the dismissal. The High Court, therefore, rightly rejected the contentions advanced by the petitioner.
8. ' This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 9 cases
- Mahmoodi Begum and others vs Mohammad Eisa and others 2023 MLD 739
- M/s. Gerry's Dnata (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Learned Member and 02 others 2022 PCTLR 1363
- SAIFUDDIN Versus ZAINUDDIN 2017 CLC 1741
- BABAR HUSSAIN SHAH and anothers vs MUJEEB AHMED KHAN and another 2012 SCMR 1235
- BABAR HUSSAIN SHAH & others vs MUJEEB AHMED KHAN and another 2013 PLJ SC 24
- Messrs BENGAL CORPORATION and 8 others vs MIDDLE EAST BANK LTD 2000 PLD Karachi 326
- HUSSAIN KHAN vs GHANNO BIBI And OTHER 1997 CLC 1324
- SHABRATI vs SHAUKAT ALI KHAN 1997 MLD 2884
- ABUL KALAM vs BASHIR AHMAD RANA AND ANOTHER 1984 CLC 2997