Appeal (Service)

Condonation of delay in filing appeal-Mere affidavit filed-does not furnish adequate proof for the Condonation of delay. Muhammad Akram v. Azad J&K Govt 1992 SCR 259 (A)
Point of law of public importance-Aallowed to be raised for the first time before this Court. Sh. Muhammad yaqub v. AJ&K Council & others 1992 SCR 276 (A)
Departmental remedy — Appeal competent before the Deputy Inspector General of Police-Appellant making representation to the President held cannot be said that by making representation to the President appellant availed the departmental remedy. Appeal dismissed. S. Bashir Hussain v. I.G.P.& others 1992 SCR 290 (A)
Point of law neither raised in previous litigation nor in the subsequent litigation-Point also not raised in the concise statement-not allowed to be raised at late stage. Sadiq Hussain Qureshi v. Azad Govt 1992 SCR 356 (A)
Aggrieved person-Person who is not a party before the High Court can file the leave to appeal if he is an aggrieved person. Azad Govt. v. Ataf Hussain 1992 SCR 396 (A)
New point- new point not allowed to be raised for the first time in this court-unless it has been incorporated in the memorandum of appeal or the concise statement. Muhammad Azad Khan v. The Secretary AJK Council 1993 SCR 387 (B)
An appeal lies to the Service Tribunal if a final order is respect of terms and conditions has been passed-Publication of advertisement-Adverse order-Departmental remedy. Muhammad Riaz & others v. Azad Government & others 1994 SCR 82 (A)
Sanction for filing appeal is required only if the appeal is filed on behalf of the Government and not in personal capacity. Khawaja Ahmad Din v. Mohammad Shabir Khan 1994 SCR 142 (A)
Necessary party — A civil servant remotely interested in the appeal can be regarded as necessary party in the appeal. Farooq Ahmad Khan v. Shaukat Jan Buch and others 1994 SCR 195 (A)
Copy of the decree not appended with the memorandum of appeal — Whether there was a competent appeal — Held: The requirement of law is that the appeal in the High Court must be accompanied by three documents; i.e. copy of the judgment and decree appealed from and copy of the judgment of the Court of first instance — Further held: That a discretion is vested in the Court to dispense with the copy of the judgment of either the trial Court or the appellate Court, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. So far as the copy of the decree appealed from is concerned it cannot be dispensed with simply for the reason that an appeal is basically preferred against a decree and not against a judgment, unless of course the judgment itself amounts to a decree. Muhammad Amin Shah v. Methab Din & anothers 1995 SCR 390 (A) 1981 CLS S.C AJK 359, 1980 CLC S.C. AJK 1130, 1985 CLS 1982, PLD 1959 AJK 31, PLD 1991 AJK 14 referred.
Memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by the copy of the decree and judgment appealed from and the copy of the judgment of the Court of first instance unless the copy of the judgment of the Court of first instance or the judgment appealed from is dispensed with by the Court, either expressly, or by necessary implication. M. Amin Shah v. Methab Din 1995 SCR 390 (B)
Whether there can be a valid appeal without there being no respondent — Petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Government — Respondent No.1 was struck off — Another application was moved by the petitioner through which respondent No. 2 was allowed to be deleted — Application was accepted — The result was that there was no respondent left — In view of the vacuum created the case could not proceed further — No law or precedent or practice could be shown by the counsel for the petitioner under which an appeal can be heard without there being a respondent — Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sarfraz Alam & 2 others 1996 SCR 326 (A & B)
Copy of order attestation of — A certified copy of the order, if it is in existence — Can only be issued by the office in which the original is retained — A civil servant not allowed to attest the copy himself. M. Naseer Jahangiri and 13 others v. Abdus Sami Khan & another 1997 SCR 26 (C, D)
Objection that appeal was not maintainable because it has been filed by Managing Director of AKLASC and not by the Corporation — Held: Objection is devoid of force firstly respondent himself impleaded the Managing Director secondly there is specific prayer that the Managing Director may be directed to implement the order passed by AKLASC seniority list already withdrawn, writ petition not rightly admitted. Managing Director AKLASC v. Muhammad Asghar Khan and 3 others 1997 SCR 93 (A)
Document filing of — Document which was not placed before the Service Tribunal cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. Abdul Rashid v. D.E.O. and another 1997 SCR 367 (E)
Stranger to a suit or proceeding can file an appeal — However right to appeal accrues only to that person who is adversely affected. Mahmood-ur-Rehman v. Atta Ullah Atta 1997 SCR 330 (A)
Service matter — Orders passed during pendency of appeal sought to be challenged by way of amendment — Value of — Limitation for — Held: Orders challenged by way of amendment are independent orders and are appealable before departmental authority and then to Service Tribunal — Amendments are not necessary for determining real question in controversy. Muhammad Shafi and another v. Forest Department and 4 others 2000 SCR 319 (A)
Non-impleading of co-sharers in appeal — Held: Persons not impleaded as party in appeal, interest accrued to them under judgment of High Court would not be adversely effected. Muhammad Khaild & 3 others v. Muhammad Akram and 10 others 2001 SCR 185 (A)
Appeal — Limitation — Knowledge — Held: Appellants were not party before Service Tribunal, the appeal was filed within time reckoned from the date of knowledge. Basharat Hussain and 4 others v. Muhammmad Imtiaz Khan and 3 others 2002 SCR 399 (A)
Appeal — Contention that as the points were not raised before the Service Tribunal same cannot be raised before this Court is not sustainable because the appellants were not impleaded as party before Service Tribunal. Basharat H. v. M. Imtiaz Khan and others 2002 SCR 399 (E)
Appeal to Supreme Court can be preferred by a person aggrieved by the order or decree passed by the High Court. M. Aziz Khan v. United Kashmir Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 2003 SCR 363 (B)
The appellant has failed to prove that any approval was accorded by the Prime Minister on a duly processed file from the competent authority in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Rules of Business — Such approvals obtained through illegal process, confer no right to the appellant nor does it carry any legal weigh, particularly when in furtherance of the approvals no Government notification, as visualized by law, was issued. Muhammad Azim Zia v. Nazir Ahmed Qadri & others 2003 SCR 44 (I)
Right of appeal is a statutory right — It can be availed by observing the mandatory requirements fixed by law — To meet the ends of justice Courts of law had in exceptional cases refrained from taking hypothetical view in respect of procedural requirements laid down under law and in exceptional cases overlooked the procedural technicalities — Everyone who wants to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under any statutory provision for redressal of his grievance must fulfil the procedural requirements laid down by law. Defence Department of Pakistan v. Muhammad Khan and another 2004 SCR 459 (B)