Supreme
Court Rules
Limitation
of time for special leave.
Limitation
of time to move Supreme Court for special leave—Time taken in getting copies of
the judgment under appeal as well as the further time spent in making
application under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to be deducted in computing
60 days time limitation.
Kalachand
Sikdar Vs. Fazlur Karim Mian (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 417.
Or 13, r. I— The period of 60 days fixed under Order XIII, rule 1 of the
Supreme Court Rules for the filing of a petition for special appeal leave in
this Court is to be calculated from the date of the judgment or order or decree
sought to be appealed against. In computing this period the parties are
entitled to a deduction of the days actually spent in obtaining certified
copies of the judgment under appeal which is required to be filed along with
the petition. Similarly, where an application for leave under clause 15 of the
Letters Patent has also been made in the High Court, the parties might also be
allowed to claim a further deduction of the period of time actually spent in
making the application under clause 15, because it is only proper that a party
should first exhaust all available remedies in the High Court before approaching
the Supreme Court. But this does not entitle any one to claim a fresh starting
point of limitation as from the date of the order rejecting the application for
leave under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Mistake made
by the Branch Registry cannot create any right in the appellants to have the
appeal heard even though it is out of time.
Kalachand
Sikdar Vs. Fazlur Karim Mian (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 417.
Or. 19, r.
I—Point raised
neither in Courts below nor in application for special leave to appeal, but
raised in concise statement—Will not be allowed without special leave of Court
(refused in this case on ground that the point was inconsistent with another
decision inter parties).
The plea
that one person survived another is after all a plea of fact even though it is
sought to be proved by means of a presumption and the considerations for
allowing such a point to be argued for the first time before the Supreme Court,
though not raised in Court are not exactly the same as they would be when a
pure question of law not argued in the Courts below is sought to be argued.
The fact
that inconsistent decision has been given inter parties can be one of die
circumstances to be taken into account while deciding whether the point should
be allowed to be argued.
Bashir Ahmed
Vs. KS Agha Yaqub (1961)13 DLR (SC) 338.
—Finding of
fact, concurrent—will not be allowed to be challenged in Supreme Court in
absence of special circumstances—According to the practice of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council which is the predecessor of the Supreme Court as
well as of the Federal Court, concurrent findings of fact arc not allowed to be
challenged in the absence of special circumstances.
Bashir Ahmed
Vs. KS Agha Yaqub (1961) 13 DLR (SC) 338.
Or. 21, r. I
: Delay in filing concise statement can be condoned—Objections
put forward by the respondents is that the concise statement submitted on
behalf of the appellant in this case was unduly delayed. This delay is condoned
and the objection, therefore, loses its force.
Pakistan Vs.
Wallullah Sufyani (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 338.
Or. 22, r.
6-E:
Cross-objections cannot be filed (in a case in which appeal can only be filed
by special leave) without special leave. The Court, however, treated the cross
objection as an application for special leave.
Pakistan Vs.
Waliullah Sufyani (1965)17 DLR (SC) 338.
Supreme
Court Rules, 1956—Counsel and Attorney accepted brief but clients thereafter not
interested to contest —Counsel and Attorney bound to appear before Court and
inform it about client’s disinterestedness.
SM Jafar Vs.
AQ Shaukat (1969) 21 DLR (SC) 175.
Or. 6, R. 28—Advocate
engaged for appearing in Supreme Court—Cannot appoint another advocate to
represent him in Court—Advocates receive instructions from Attorneys, who
are expected to keep in touch with the client. Attorneys are to be armed with a
power-of- attorney which enables them to engage counsel to represent their
clients. Advocates do not possess this power. Therefore, where an advocate
appeared and argued a case on behalf of another advocate, the Court on the
request of the party ordered rehearing of the case and directed the advocate in
fact engaged by party to argue the case.
Muhammad Vs.
State PLD 1963 Supreme Court 23 =1962 (2) PSCR 574. (Cornelius, Ci).
