One appeal can't time barred when other appeal was filed in time.
 |
| One appeal can't time barred when other appeal was filed in time |
ایک اپیل جب ٹائم پر فائل ھو گئی ھو تو دوسری کو ٹائم بارڈ قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا۔
اس کیس میں مسٹ. رخسانہ کوثر نے ایک رٹ پٹیشن دائر کی جس میں انہوں نے اس حکم کو چیلنج کیا جو ان کی اپیل کو وقت کی پابندی کی بنا پر مسترد کر دیا گیا تھا۔
انہوں نے دو علیحدہ علیحدہ فیملی مقدمات دائر کیے تھے—
ایک نان نفقہ کی وصولی کے لیے اور دوسرا جہیز کی اشیاء کی وصولی کے لیے۔ ان دونوں مقدمات کا فیصلہ 21 دسمبر 2020 کو مشترکہ طور پر کیا گیا۔ رخسانہ نے دو علیحدہ اپیلیں دائر کیں، مگر ایک اپیل تاخیر کی وجہ سے مسترد کر دی گئی۔ تاخیر کی وجہ تصدیق شدہ کاپی حاصل کرنے میں مشکلات اور وکیل کے والد کی طبیعت کی خرابی تھی۔
اگر ایک اپیل وقت پر دائر کی گئی ہو تو دوسری اپیل کی تاخیر کو معاف کیا جا سکتا
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے فیصلہ دیا کہ اگر ایک اپیل وقت پر دائر کی گئی ہو تو دوسری اپیل کی تاخیر کو معاف کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ عدالت نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ چونکہ ایک اپیل وقت پر دائر کی گئی تھی اور اس پر سماعت ہوئی تھی، لہذا دوسری اپیل کی تاخیر کو معقول سمجھا جانا چاہیے۔ اس بناء پر عدالت نے رٹ پٹیشن کو قبول کرتے ہوئے مسترد شدہ حکم کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا اور مقدمہ کو دوبارہ اپیلیٹ کورٹ کے پاس فیصلے کے لیے بھیج دیا۔
Must read judgement
PLJ 2022 Lahore 359
Present: ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J.
Mst. RUKHSANA KAUSAR--Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD NADEEM and 2 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 10342 of 2021, decided on 18.3.2021.
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961)--
----Ss. 9 & 10--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Suits for recovery of maintenance
allowance and recovery of dowry articles--Consolidated judgment--Appeal for enhancement
of maintenance allowance was dismissed--Barred by time--Challenge to--Consolidated
judgment and decree one appeal of petitioner to extent of increase of alternative price of
dowry articles was within time and same has been duly entertained by appellate Court,
whereas other appeal against same consolidated judgment has been dismissed being barred by
time--It is settled law that if against same consolidated judgment one appeal is within time
then delay in filing of other appeal against same judgment is condonable--Appellate Court has
erred in law and fact while dismissing appeal of petitioner being barred by time--Petition
allowed. [P. 360] A & B
2019 SCMR 524 and PLD 2008 SC 591 ref.
Mr. Shafique Ahmad Bhutta, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Azam Jan Muhammad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Date of hearing: 18.3.2021.
ORDER
Through this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.1.2021
whereby petitioner’s appeal was dismissed being barred by time.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner filed two separate family suits i.e. one for
recovery of maintenance allowance and the other for recovery of dowry articles. Both these suits
were decided by learned family Court through consolidated judgment dated 21.12.2020. The
petitioner being aggrieved filed two separate appeals, however, one appeal (for enhancement of
the maintenance allowance) was dismissed being barred by time through impugned order dated
30.1.2021, hence this Constitutional petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after consolidated judgment dated
21.12.2020, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decree on
26.12.2020 which was received on 15.1.2021 and a single appeal was filed against the
consolidated judgment. However, the concerned office did not entertain the appeal and directed
the petitioner to file two separate appeals as two separate suits were filed by the petitioner.
Submits that petitioner again applied for another certified copy on 15.1.2021; which was
received on the same day. However, as father of the counsel for the petitioner was hospitalized,
therefore, the appeal was filed on 28.1.2021. Submits that appeal to the extent of maintenance
allowance was dismissed being barred by time though the delay was duly explained in the
application for condonation of delay
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that each and every
day of delay was not explained hence appeal was lawfully dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. It is admitted position on record that against the consolidated
judgment and decree dated 21.12.2020 one appeal of the petitioner to the extent of increase of
alternative price of dowry articles was within time and same has been duly entertained by the
learned appellate Court, whereas the other appeal against the same consolidated judgment has
been dismissed being barred by time. It is settled law that if against the same consolidated
judgment one appeal is within time then the delay in filing of the other appeal against the same
judgment is condonable. In this regard reliance is placed on “Sheikh Akhtar Aziz
vs. Mst. Shabnam Begum and others (2019 SCMR 524), “Subedar Sardar Khan through Legal
Heirs and others vs. Muhammad Idrees through General Attorney and another (PLD 2008 S.C.
591). Further in the application of condonation of delay the petitioner has explained that delay
was caused as father of the learned counsel for the petitioner was hospitalized. In the
circumstances the learned appellate Court has erred in law and fact while dismissing the appeal
of the petitioner being barred by time.
6. In view of above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated
30.1.2021 is set aside. Consequently the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and matter is
remitted back to the learned appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits.
(Y.A.) Petition allowed