Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: RAB NAWAZ VS Respondent: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WAPDA
1988 S C M R 1943
1988 S C M R 1943
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ
RAB NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner
versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WAPDA‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.295‑R of 1986, decided on 20th June, 1988.
(On appeal from judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 5‑11‑1986 passed in Appeal No.107‑R of 1985).
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑
‑‑Ss.5 & 14‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Appeal dismissed by Service Tribunal as barred by time‑‑Petitioner contended that time spent by petitioner in seeking remedy before forums provided by Labour Laws and that spent in High Court regarding pendency of a writ petition had to be excluded under S.14 of Limitation Act, and, in any case it was for treatment under S.5 read with S.14 thereof and not otherwise‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider the contention and also the question whether declaration of law or clarification of a point of law by Supreme Court operated as a notice about state of law of such type that ignorance about it or failure to act on it, enhanced bar of limitation.
M. Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasim Jaffri Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 20th June, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Petitioner's service appeal having been dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal, leave to appeal has been sought on the ground that the appeal was not liable to be dismissed as time‑barred.
The plea taken before and rejected by the Tribunal was that the time spent by the petitioner in seeking remedy before the forums provided by the Labour Laws and that spent in the High Court regarding the pendency of a writ petition had to be excluded u/s 141 of the Limitation Act; and, in any case it was a case for treatment u/s 5 read with Section 14, thereof and not otherwise.
This argument inter alia has also been pressed before us. It needs examination. Besides, it also needs examination whether the declaration of law or clarification of a point of law, by this Court operates as a notice about the state of law of such type that ignorance about it or failure to act on it, enhances the bar of Limitation
Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. To be heard with similar other cases, on the present record with direction for filing of all necessary documents
M . Y . H . /R‑60/ S Leave to appeal granted.