AGL 38.75 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.13%)
AIRLINK 137.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.78 (-0.57%)
BOP 5.37 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-1.1%)
CNERGY 3.87 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (2.38%)
DCL 8.09 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (4.52%)
DFML 45.74 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.26%)
DGKC 83.30 Increased By ▲ 2.80 (3.48%)
FCCL 30.27 Increased By ▲ 0.72 (2.44%)
FFBL 57.60 Increased By ▲ 1.80 (3.23%)
FFL 9.14 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.55%)
HUBC 106.85 Increased By ▲ 1.25 (1.18%)
HUMNL 14.30 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (1.78%)
KEL 4.68 Increased By ▲ 0.38 (8.84%)
KOSM 7.98 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-3.04%)
MLCF 38.93 Increased By ▲ 0.95 (2.5%)
NBP 67.60 Decreased By ▼ -1.63 (-2.35%)
OGDC 168.99 Increased By ▲ 1.99 (1.19%)
PAEL 25.38 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (0.71%)
PIBTL 5.94 Decreased By ▼ -0.84 (-12.39%)
PPL 131.00 Increased By ▲ 0.65 (0.5%)
PRL 23.76 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PTC 15.75 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.32%)
SEARL 64.75 Increased By ▲ 3.27 (5.32%)
TELE 7.40 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (5.11%)
TOMCL 36.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.03%)
TPLP 7.86 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.64%)
TREET 14.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-1.45%)
TRG 45.25 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (0.8%)
UNITY 25.83 Increased By ▲ 0.32 (1.25%)
WTL 1.29 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.57%)
BR100 9,347 Increased By 123.7 (1.34%)
BR30 28,113 Increased By 346.6 (1.25%)
KSE100 87,195 Increased By 728 (0.84%)
KSE30 27,397 Increased By 234 (0.86%)

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.