BR100 Increased By (0.01%)
BR30 Increased By (0.53%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.28%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.29%)
AGHA 6.35 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.47%)
BECO 4.39 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.81%)
BML 62.50 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.08%)
BOP 31.47 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (0.77%)
CNERGY 11.70 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (0.95%)
CSIL 5.92 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (3.5%)
FCCL 61.60 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.1%)
FFL 14.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-1.53%)
FNEL 1.23 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 6.33 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.12%)
KOSM 5.90 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (6.12%)
LOTCHEM 24.79 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (0.45%)
MLCF 103.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.14%)
NBP 173.05 Decreased By ▼ -2.23 (-1.27%)
NCPL 51.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.92 (-1.74%)
NPL 54.19 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.13%)
OGDC 315.50 Increased By ▲ 2.11 (0.67%)
PACE 9.26 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.65%)
PAEL 35.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-0.81%)
PIBTL 13.65 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (1.34%)
PPL 226.60 Increased By ▲ 4.79 (2.16%)
PRL 80.30 Increased By ▲ 1.22 (1.54%)
PTC 46.89 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.09%)
SSGC 23.90 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.13%)
TBL 9.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.11%)
TELE 7.65 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (3.52%)
TPL 24.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.60 (-2.39%)
TPLP 13.04 Increased By ▲ 0.53 (4.24%)
TREET 26.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-0.76%)
TRG 53.38 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.11%)

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 for this article.