| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2100 2017 SLD 2100 2017 YLR 355 |
Peshawar High Court
C.M. No. 197-A of 2009, decision & hearing Dated: 20-06-2014.
ABDUL LATIF KHAN, JUSTICE
Malik Amjad Ali for Appellant. Tanveer Ahmed Mughal for
Respondent.
C.M. No. 197-A of 2009, decision & hearing Dated: 20-06-2014.
ABDUL LATIF KHAN, JUSTICE
Malik Amjad Ali for Appellant. Tanveer Ahmed Mughal for
Respondent.
ZAMURAD KHAN
VS
SABIR KHAN
Law:
Section:
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Art. 181 & Ss. 5 & 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.52--- Lis pendens, principle of--- Applicability--- Decree, setting aside of---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Exclusion of time consumed in wrong forum---Sufficient cause---Due diligence---Good cause---Scope---Three years period for filing an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. had been provided---Present application under S.12(2), C.P.C. had been filed after lapse of three years, eight months and seven days which was barred by time---Applicants remained busy before wrong forum without any justification---No sufficient cause or due diligence had been shown in prosecuting the said application in good faith before wrong forum---Rights of plaintiffs would not be affected from the transaction as property in question had been purchased during the pendency of suit---Applicants were bound to get them impleaded in the suit proceedings after acquiring of property through purchase---Applicants were having knowledge of pendency of suit but they intentionally not applied for their impleadment---Applicants were required to purchase the property after ascertaining the actual position/ ownership and reasonable care and caution--- Time spent in pursuing the proceedings before wrong forum could not be excluded and to invoke the provision of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 sufficient cause had to be shown---Conditions precedent in Ss. 14 & 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 were different and could not be equated---Powers of court under S. 5 of Limitation Act,1908 were discretionary in nature whereas those under S. 14 of said Act were mandatory---No reasonable and sufficient cause for not preferring the application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. before the proper forum had been shown---Application was dismissed in circumstances. Dr. Syed Sibtain Raza Naqvi v. Hydrocarbon Development and others 2012 SCMR 377 and Sarfraz v. Muhammad Aslam Khan and another 2001 SCMR 1063 rel. (b) Words and phrases--- ----"Sufficient cause"---Meaning---"Sufficient cause" was meant "circumstances beyond control of a party". THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ABDUL…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492