Case Summary & Legal Holding

This judicial decision was delivered by the SUPREME-COURT. The matter involves proceedings between CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI and MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE SIDDIQUIHonorable Justice NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUISuleman Habibullah Addl,Nemo, officially reported as 2004 PLC(CS) 962. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2004 P L C (C

2004 P L C (C.S.) 962

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Nazirn Hussain Siddiqui and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ

CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI and another

Versus

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE SIDDIQUI

Civil Petition fto.58‑K of 2002 decided, on 28th February, 2002.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 4‑10‑2001 of Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi passed in Appeal No. 165 of 2000).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XIII, R.1‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal by Government‑‑ Delay of 38 days‑‑‑Plea for condonation of delay was that instructions from concerned authority for filing appeal were not received in time‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Government could not be treated differently from ordinary litigant on question of limitation‑‑‑Completion of formalities would not be a sufficient ground for condoning such delay‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.

Federation of Pakistan v. Jamaluddin and others 1996 SGMR 727; Central Board of Revenue v. Raja Industries 1998 SCMR 307 and Pakistan Coast Guards v. Shareef Ahmed 2000 SCJ 586 rel.

Suleman Habibullah Addl. A.G Sindh and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 28th February, 2002.

JUDGMENT

NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J‑‑‑The petitioners have impugned the judgment dated 4‑10‑2001 of learned Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi whereby the Appeal No.165‑2000 preferred by respondent, Muhammad Rafique Siddiqui, was allowed.

2. Admittedly, the petition is time‑barred by 38 days. The condonation of delay is sought on the ground that instructions from the concerned authority for filing appeal were not received in time and for that reason the petition could not be filed within time. It is settled law that on question of limitation the Government could not be treated differently from ordinary litigant. Completion of formalities is not a sufficient ground for condoning such delay. On above point, reference can be made to the cases reported as (1) Federation of Pakistan v. Jamaluddin and others (1996 SCMR 727), (2) Central Board of Revenue, v. Raja Industries (1998 SCMR 307) and (3) Pakistan Coast Guards v. Shareef Ahmed (2000 SCJ 586).

3. Since delay has not been explained satisfactorily, the leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.

S.A.K./C‑91/S Leave Refused.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from SUPREME-COURT
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant