| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 3104 2012 SLD 3104 2012 PLD 247 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 2052 of 2009, decided on 30th September, 2011, heard on: 30th September, 2011.
NASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE AND MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents.
Civil Petition No. 2052 of 2009, decided on 30th September, 2011, heard on: 30th September, 2011.
NASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE AND MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents.
HAJI ABDUL KARIM AND others
VS
MESSRS FLORIDA BUILDERS (PVT) LIMITED
Law:
Section:
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---.--- ---.----Ss. 15, 19 & Art. 113---.---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---.---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.62---.---First & Second Parts of Art.113, Limitation Act, 1908---.---Scope---.---Cases squarely falling within ambit of First Part of Art. 113 of Limitation Act, 1908 could not be adjudged or considered on touchstone of its Second Part for both being independent meant to cater two different types of suits of specific performance in relation to limitation attracted thereto---.---Limitation in suit for specific performance of agreement having a fixed date of its performance would run forthwith from such date irrespective of and notwithstanding there being a default, lapse or inability on part of either party thereto to perform his part of obligation in relation thereto---.---In cases falling in Second Part of Art. 113, wherein date of performance was not fixed or certain, date of refusal of performance would be only basis for computing limitation period---.---Exemption or exclusion from or enlargement of period of limitation in cases falling in First Part of Art.113 of Limitation Act, 1908 would be permissible only if there was a change in date fixed or same was dispensed with by parties vide any subsequent express agreement in writing made within original period of limitation by resorting to novation of original agreement or acknowledgment within purview of S.19 thereof---.---Party claiming such exemption etc., if same was provided and available under law, would be bound to plead grounds thereof in the plaint---.---General principle to the effect that "time is not the essence of contract" for not being an enunciation of any statutory instrument would have nothing to do with proposition of limitation of cases of specific performance---.---Limitation was a command of law prescribing statutory period within which a right had to be exercised or enforced---.---Courts would have no lawful authority to ignore date/period stipulated in contract meant to regulate period of limitation in terms of First Part of Art. 113 of Limitation Act, 1908---.---No exemption qua period of limitation in law could be claimed by…
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