AGL 40.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
AIRLINK 129.06 Decreased By ▼ -0.47 (-0.36%)
BOP 6.75 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.05%)
CNERGY 4.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-3.02%)
DCL 8.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.39 (-4.36%)
DFML 40.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.87 (-2.09%)
DGKC 80.96 Decreased By ▼ -2.81 (-3.35%)
FCCL 32.77 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFBL 74.43 Decreased By ▼ -1.04 (-1.38%)
FFL 11.74 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (2.35%)
HUBC 109.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.97 (-0.88%)
HUMNL 13.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.81 (-5.56%)
KEL 5.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-1.48%)
KOSM 7.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.68 (-8.1%)
MLCF 38.60 Decreased By ▼ -1.19 (-2.99%)
NBP 63.51 Increased By ▲ 3.22 (5.34%)
OGDC 194.69 Decreased By ▼ -4.97 (-2.49%)
PAEL 25.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.94 (-3.53%)
PIBTL 7.39 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-3.52%)
PPL 155.45 Decreased By ▼ -2.47 (-1.56%)
PRL 25.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.94 (-3.52%)
PTC 17.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.96 (-5.2%)
SEARL 78.65 Decreased By ▼ -3.79 (-4.6%)
TELE 7.86 Decreased By ▼ -0.45 (-5.42%)
TOMCL 33.73 Decreased By ▼ -0.78 (-2.26%)
TPLP 8.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.66 (-7.28%)
TREET 16.27 Decreased By ▼ -1.20 (-6.87%)
TRG 58.22 Decreased By ▼ -3.10 (-5.06%)
UNITY 27.49 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.22%)
WTL 1.39 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.72%)
BR100 10,445 Increased By 38.5 (0.37%)
BR30 31,189 Decreased By -523.9 (-1.65%)
KSE100 97,798 Increased By 469.8 (0.48%)
KSE30 30,481 Increased By 288.3 (0.95%)

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.