| Case ID |
2e339be8-f80d-4cdf-93eb-58eba159b91d |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Second Appeal No. 232 of 1952 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 02, 1954 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to the failure to comply with the requirements of the Limitation Act. The appellant did not adequately explain the delay in re-filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The court emphasized that under the Limitation Act, the time taken to obtain a copy of the trial court's judgment cannot be excluded from the limitation period unless it is justified for every day of delay. The court reiterated that it is the appellant's responsibility to explain any delay beyond the allowed period for filing an appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs. |
| Summary |
In the case of Second Appeal No. 232 of 1952, decided by the Lahore High Court on April 2, 1954, the court addressed significant issues concerning the Limitation Act, 1908, particularly Sections 5 and 12. The case involved the appellants Ghulam Hussain and others against Bahadar and others, focusing on the adherence to procedural requirements for filing an appeal. The crux of the matter revolved around the timely submission of necessary documents, specifically the judgment of the trial court. The court ruled that the appeal was time-barred as the appellant failed to explain the delay in re-filing the appeal, which was critical for maintaining the integrity of the legal process. This case highlights the importance of understanding the implications of the Limitation Act and the necessity for appellants to be diligent in fulfilling procedural obligations. Legal practitioners must ensure that all requirements are met to avoid dismissal of appeals, reinforcing the principle that procedural compliance is paramount in the pursuit of justice. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ABDUL AZIZ KHAN, J
|
| Lawyers |
M. M. Shafi,
Zahur Ahmad,
Iftikhar-ul-Haq Khan
|
| Petitioners |
3 others,
GHULAM HUSSAIN
|
| Respondents |
others,
BAHADAR
|
| Citations |
1954 SLD 83,
1954 PLD 361
|
| Other Citations |
Devala v. Hiru 67 Indian Cases 670,
Maulu Ram Mal v. Siri Ram I L R 2 Lah. 227,
Naul and others v. Mula and others A I R 1926 Lah. 626,
Chuhar Mal v Bira Ram A I R 1923 Lah. 461,
Gurdit Singh v. Charan Das 72 Indian Cases 797,
Sardar Prithi Pal Singh v. Pandit Hams Raj and others A I R 1939 Lah. 378
|
| Laws Involved |
Limitation Act, 1908
|
| Sections |
5,
12
|