AIRLINK 204.45 Increased By ▲ 3.55 (1.77%)
BOP 10.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.59%)
CNERGY 6.91 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.44%)
FCCL 34.83 Increased By ▲ 0.74 (2.17%)
FFL 17.21 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (1.35%)
FLYNG 24.52 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (2%)
HUBC 137.40 Increased By ▲ 5.70 (4.33%)
HUMNL 13.82 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.44%)
KEL 4.91 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (2.08%)
KOSM 6.70 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
MLCF 44.31 Increased By ▲ 0.98 (2.26%)
OGDC 221.91 Increased By ▲ 3.16 (1.44%)
PACE 7.09 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.58%)
PAEL 42.97 Increased By ▲ 1.43 (3.44%)
PIAHCLA 17.08 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.06%)
PIBTL 8.59 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.69%)
POWER 9.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.99%)
PPL 190.60 Increased By ▲ 3.48 (1.86%)
PRL 43.04 Increased By ▲ 0.98 (2.33%)
PTC 25.04 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.2%)
SEARL 106.41 Increased By ▲ 6.11 (6.09%)
SILK 1.02 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.99%)
SSGC 42.91 Increased By ▲ 0.58 (1.37%)
SYM 18.31 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (1.84%)
TELE 9.14 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.33%)
TPLP 13.11 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (1.39%)
TRG 68.13 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-0.32%)
WAVESAPP 10.24 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.49%)
WTL 1.87 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.54%)
YOUW 4.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.97%)
BR100 12,137 Increased By 188.4 (1.58%)
BR30 37,146 Increased By 778.3 (2.14%)
KSE100 115,272 Increased By 1435.3 (1.26%)
KSE30 36,311 Increased By 549.3 (1.54%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court held that technicalities of delay in filing of an appeal cannot be adhered to strictly in cases of guardianship and custody of the minors as paramount consideration is the welfare of a minor.The court passed this order in a petition of Mst Ayesha Altaf who approached the court against the appellate court which dismissed her appeal for being time barred filed against an order rejecting the custody of the minor.

The appellate court had dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed after more than one month and 15 days of the announcement of the order under challenge and only one day was required to obtain certified copy of the impugned order.

The appellate court did not find the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay plausible as each and every day of delay had not been explained.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the appellate court instead of deciding the matter on technicalities should have determined the question of welfare of minor before deciding the application for condonation of delay and the appeal against dismissal of application for interim custody. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent defended the impugned order and said that the application for permanent custody of the minor is still pending with the appellate court and added that the petitioner instead of challenging the dismissal of application for interim custody of minor should wait for the final decision of the matter.

The court deciding the petition said although the appeal has been dismissed for being time barred but it appears that the appellate court does not consider the aspect of welfare of the minor. The court, therefore, remanded the matter to the appellate court for decision afresh and observed that keeping in view the aspect of welfare of the minor, the appeal as well as application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner shall be deemed pending for deciding afresh.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.