AFSAR KHAN and 11 others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Deputy
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal (I.C.A.) filed by the petitioners. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioners' counsel acknowledged that the initial I.C.A. was procedurally incorrect and requested permission to withdraw the current petition. The counsel sought liberty to approach the High Court again by filing a fresh I.C.A., accompanied by an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, to seek condonation of delay, arguing that the petitioners had been pursuing the matter under a mistaken legal impression. The Advocate-General, Punjab, raised objections regarding the maintainability of such a future I.C.A. The Supreme Court declined to adjudicate on the maintainability of the proposed future proceedings, holding that such determinations fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, the Court granted the request to withdraw the petition, allowing the petitioners to pursue their remedies in the appropriate forum in accordance with the law, while preserving the right of the opposing party to contest the proceedings.
- Can a petitioner withdraw a petition for leave to appeal to pursue a fresh remedy in the High Court?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to determine the maintainability of a future Intra-Court Appeal that has not yet been filed before the High Court?
- Is a party entitled to seek condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 when pursuing a remedy after withdrawing a previous petition?
- Section 14, Limitation Act 1908
- Article 150, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 21st April, 1999 passed by Lahore High Court,. Lahore whereby I.C.A. Filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners stated that after having examined the legal position, he is of the opinion that against the order, dated 18th February, 1998, passed in Writ Petition No,17131 of 1997, petitioners should have filed independent I.C.A. Within the period of 20 days as contemplated under Article 150 of the Limitation Act, therefore, permission be accorded to him to withdraw this petition with observation that petitioners will be free to approach the I.C.A. Bench for the redressal of their grievance by filing I.C.A., with application under section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay if has occurred because during this period they had been diligently pursuing the matter under a wrong legal impression.
3. Learned Advocate-General, Punjab stated that he has serious objection on the maintainability of the I.C.A. If filed against the judgment, dated 18th February, 1998 passed by High Court in Writ Petition No,17131 -of 1997 with an application under section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
4. We are not inclined to dilate upon the maintainability or otherwise of I.C.A., if filed before learned High Court at this stage because it would be for the learned High Court to examine this aspect of the case according to law but as now a request has been made for withdrawal of petition, therefore, in view of the statement of learned counsel for petitioner, without making any observation and causing prejudice to any of the parties, petition is dismissed as withdrawn and petitioners are allowed to seek remedy from the appropriate forum strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to observe that if such proceedings are instituted, other side will have opportunity to contest the same squarely on all legal and factual planes.
' Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with above observations.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus State 2008 PCrLJ 1360