Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 75 2025 SLD 75 2025 PLJ 10
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
C.R. No. S-40 of 2005, decided on 28.2.2022. Date of hearing: 28.2.2022.
AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, J.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Tejwani, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Sajjad Hussain Kolachi, Advocate for the
Respondent No. 1(a).

AYAZ AHMED SOOMRO THROUGH L.RS.--APPLICANT

VERSUS

RASHEED REHMAN (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS--RESPONDENTS

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 91

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 39, 42, 54

Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908)--

----Art. 91--Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), Ss. 39, 42 & 54--Evacuee property--Sale-deed--Suit for declaration, cancellation and permanent injunction--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Concurrent findings--Limitation--Time-barred--Challenge to--Admission on part of respondent reflected that insofar as subsequent sale deeds including sale deed of Respondent No. 4, it was in their knowledge that matter at least in year 1981--Limitation for filing a Suit for cancellation is three years, as provided under Article 91 of Limitation Act, 1908--The property was an Evacuee property, then filing of a Suit for declaration to seek any enlargement of limitation did not suffice--Even if any declaratory Suit was competent; but once cancellation was sought, whereas, Sale deed’s existence was already in knowledge, then limitation applicable in respect of cancellation would apply and not of a declaratory suit--The suit was hopelessly time barred and nothing has been stated in Plaint so as to overcome that crucial element going against Respondents, whereas, averments of Applicant in that regard through their written statement stands admitted in evidence, and therefore two Courts below have seriously erred in law and facts by ignoring that pertinent aspect of case regarding limitation--Once Suit was barred in time, then any adjudication on merits was uncalled for--It was held that that Suit was not competent being time barred; and therefore it was not only a case of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence; but so also of lack of jurisdiction--Civil revision allowed.


2016 SCMR 24; 2016 SCMR 986; 2004 SCMR 1001; 2001 SCMR 1700 and 2008 SCMR 1454 ref.

 

ORDER

Through this Civil Revision, the Applicant has impugned Judgment dated 30.11.2004, passed by Additional District Judge-II, Khairpur in Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1998 (Ayaz Ahmed v. Rasheed Rehman alias Abdul Rehman through his LRs and others), whereby Judgment dated 28.03.1998, passed by Senior Civil Judge-1, Khairpur in F.C Suit No. 224 of 1985 (Rasheed-ur-Rehman alias Abdul Rasheed v. Fazal Muhammad and others) through which the Suit of the Respondents was decreed, has been maintained and the Civil Appeal has been dismissed.

🔒
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