Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HANIF VS Respondent: WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
1988 S C M R 1683
1988 S C M R 1683
Present: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Capt. MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Petitioner
versus
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.99 of 1981, decided on 2nd July, 1988.
(From the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No111 (L) of 1976).
(a) Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑
‑‑‑O.XIII, R.3‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O.XIII, R.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Limitation‑‑Time‑barred petition‑ Certified copy of grounds of appeal not filed within prescribed time‑ Effect of‑‑Leave to appeal granted‑‑Question of limitation left open to be argued at time of hearing of appeal. ‑‑[ Limitation ].
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal grant of‑‑WAPDA employee‑‑Service matter‑‑Leave to appeal sought against judgment of Federal Service Tribunal‑‑On merits reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment in 1986 S C M R 18‑‑Matter requiring consideration, leave granted.
WAPDA and another v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi‑1986 SCMR 18 rel.
Mobashir Latif Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Hameed Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1988.
ORDER GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.‑‑Capt. Muhammad Hanif seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated nil.
According to the office, this petition is hopelessly barred by time. So, we called upon the learned counsel to first satisfy us on the question of limitation. He drew our attention to rule 3 of Order XIII and then compared it with rule 4 of Order XIII of Supreme Court Rules, 1956. Learned counsel submitted that the Advocate‑on‑ Record had filed certified copy of the order within time. With regard to the certified copies of the grounds of appeal, learned counsel contended that no doubt those were not filed along with the certified copy of the impugned order but then on that ground the petition would not be treated as barred by time.
On merits, learned counsel relied on a judgment of this Court in WAPDA and another v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 S C M R 18.
The matter needs examination. Leave is granted accordingly. However, the question of limitation is left open to be argued at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Security Rs.5,000. Appeal to be prepared on the present record. The petitioner if he wants to file additional documents shall do so within two months.
M.I./M‑517/S Leave granted.