Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2331 2002 SLD 2331 2002 PLD 823 = 2003 PLJ 270
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.639 of 2000, decisiondated: 20-05-2002, hearing DATE : 20-05-2002.
RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JJ
Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.Nemo for
Respondents.

JUMA KHAN AND othersVSMST. BIBI ZENABA AND others

Law:

Section:

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art. 100---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Presumption as to sale-deeds---Alleged deeds were written on plain paper; full description of scribe and marginal witnesses were not given; receipts were never acted upon by persons claiming under them; alleged scribe and marginal witnesses were not produced nor were they proved to be dead; only one person who could not identify his signatures on the alleged receipts, was produced; both the deeds reflecting transfer of land were, thus discarded and no presumption under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was drawn by all the Courts below---Plea raised on behalf of the petitioners that the suit was barred by time was also rejected for sound and cogent reasons holding that the case being related to right of inheritance to ancestral property, question of limitation did not arise in such an eventuality--- Petition for leave to appeal against the s of Courts below was dismissed by the Supreme Court.' (b) Limitation- ----Case related to right of inheritance to ancestral property---Question of limitation would not arise. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XX, R.1(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.254---Judgment when pronounced---Provisions of O.XX, R.1(2) are directory in nature and do not provide for consequences in case it is not strictly adhered to--­Rule 1(2) of O.XX, C.P.C. is in the nature of guiding principle for the Courts to which C.P.C. is made applicable and must be kept in mind while reserving a case for ---Question as to what will be the reasonable period for pronouncing in a particular case will depend on the facts of each case and the legal points involved therein---No general principle of universal application can be laid down---Where no prejudice was caused to the party by reason of delay in pronouncement of the , contention that the High Court announced the after more than five months in violation of OXX, R.1(2), C,P.C. was inconsequential having no material bearing on the merits of the case Once the arguments are concluded before a Court of law, it is expected that must be announced within a reasonable period and without…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register