Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 3069 2024 SLD 3069 2024 MLD 485
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.7548 of 2019, heard on 20th May, 2022.Date of hearing: 20th May, 2022.
Present: Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J
Ghulam Farid Sanotra for Petitioner. Ijaz Ahmad Khan for
Respondent No.1. Jamshed Rehmat Ullah for
Respondent No.4.

JAVAID IQBAL BUTT----Petitioner

VS

RIFFAT MAHMOOD GHAURI and others----Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 2,11

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 3,9,113

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXIII, R.2 & O. VII, R. 11---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.3, 9 & Art.113---Withdrawal of the suit with permission to bring a fresh one---Formal defect---Limitation---Civil Court accepted the application of the respondents/defendants for rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation---Appeal was also dismissed---Validity---Under S.9 of the Limitation Act, 1908, once time/limitation had begun to run, the subsequent disability or inability did not stop it---Under O. XXIII, R.2, C.P.C., when first suit was dismissed as withdrawn and second suit was filed, and even if permission was granted, that would not help the party to escape from applicability of limitation---Admittedly, the petitioner first filed suit on 25.07.2005 for permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents in respect of the suit property---Petitioner withdrew the said suit on 03.03.2010 with permission to file fresh one---Thereafter, on 16.03.2010 the petitioner filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 05.01.2005 in respect of the suit property after lapse of 05-years, 02-months and 11-days whereas under Art. 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the prescribed period of limitation to file a suit of specific performance of an agreement to sell was 03 years, as such, the suit of the petitioner was barred by time---Under S.3 of the Limitation Act, it was the duty of the Court to take cognizance regarding question of the limitation at any stage of trial whether the objection was raised by any party or otherwise and it should decide the point of limitation at the first instance and then proceed further with the trial of the case---Concurrent findings of fact were against the petitioner which did not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction---Civil revision was dismissed being devoid of any merits. Syed Athar Hussain Shah v. Haji Muhammad Riaz and another 2022 SCMR 778; Mst. Anwar Bibi and others v Abdul Hameed 2002 SCMR 144; Muhammad Sadiq and others v. Muhammad Mansha and others PLD 2018 SC 692; Khudadad v. Syed…
🔒
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