Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 1318 2020 SLD 1318 2020 YLR 666
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 50319 of 2019, decision Dated: 13-9-2019.
SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J
Malik Muhammad Ali Asif for Petitioner.

UMAR HAYAT

VS

MUHAMMAD IQBAL ARSHAD GORAYA AND OTHERS

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11---Suit for declaration---Rejection of plaint---Limitation---Time-barred suit had assailed order of revisional court whereby his plaint was rejected under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Validity---Father of petitioner and other plaintiffs remained alive for about 43 years after the demise of auction purchaser, but during his lifetime he had never agitated the matter before any forum---Had the father of petitioner paid the amount of his share, he would have assailed the matter of allotment in favour of auction purchaser, but he took no steps, even after the death of his father took no action for 16 years---Suit of the petitioner was barred by limitation---No jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity was available in the impugned order warranting interference by the High Court in the exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition, being devoid of force and substance, was dismissed. (b) Limitation--- ----Question of law---Question of limitation if not taken or raised by the party, could be considered by the court even at appellate and revisional stage. Lahore Development Authority v. Mst. Sharifan Bibi and another PLD 2010 SC 705 and Sardar Anwar Ali Khan and 10 others v. Sardar Baqir Ali through Legal Heirs and 4 others 1992 SCMR 2435 ref. Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212 and United Bank Limited and others v. Noor-un-Nisa and others 2015 SCMR 380 rel. ORDER SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, JUSTICE:---.--- Precisely, the petitioner and respondents Nos.13 to 17 instituted a suit for declaration with regard to the suit property, against the respondents-defendants Nos.1 to 12 contending therein that they are owners in possession of 1/4th share from 1/2 share of disputed property; the suit was duly contested by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 10 as well as by respondents Nos.11 and 12. During pendency of suit, the respondents Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.10 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint; the said application was resisted by the present petitioner and other plaintiffs. The learned…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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