Rahim Jan vs Securities Exchange Commission Of Pakistan And Other
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 34 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, against an order of the Commission, but did so after the expiry of the prescribed 60-day limitation period. Instead of filing the appeal directly, the petitioner had initially filed a constitutional petition, which was subsequently withdrawn. The High Court held that by virtue of Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908, Section 5 of the same Act was not applicable to condone the delay in filing the statutory appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon examining the condonation application, observed that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings and failed to provide sufficient justification for the delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no legal infirmity, and refused leave to appeal.
- Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is applicable to appeals filed under Section 34 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act 1997 in view of Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a statutory appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of 60 days be condoned if the appellant spent time pursuing an alternative constitutional remedy without sufficient justification?
- Section 34, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act 1997
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
- Section 29, Limitation Act 1908
MR. JUSTICE MUNIR A. SHEIKH.-(l). The appeal filed on 21.9.2001 by the petitioner before the High Court under section 34 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, against the order of the Commission dated 30.5.2001 has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2001 by the said Court as barred by time. It has been held that by virtue of section 29 of the Limitation Act, section 5 of the said Act was not attracted to the said appeal for the purpose of condonation of delay.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that against the order, dated 30.5.2001 of the Commission, the petitioner was obliged to file appeal within 60 days but instead of doing that, he filed Constitutional petition before the High Court on 20.9.2001 which was withdrawn on the next day i.e. 21.9.2001 and thereafter the appeal before the High Court was filed.
3. We have examined the application made by the petitioner before the High Court for condonation of delay and find that he himself had admitted that he had the knowledge of the date having been fixed by the Commission in the case as 30.5.2001 , and even if he was not able to appear on the said date, nothing was said in the application as to what prevented him from filing the appeal within period of limitation before the High Court.
4. The view taken by the Lahore High Court in the impugned judgment that the appeal was barred by time does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.