| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 3037 = 2001 SLD 3037 = 2001 YLR 180 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2001, decided on 25th May, 2001. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court, dated 25‑5‑200() in Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1999).
Presented By: Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi and Khawaja Muhammad Saeed, JJ
Kh. Ali Muhammad, Advocate for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq, Advocate for
Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2001, decided on 25th May, 2001. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court, dated 25‑5‑200() in Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1999).
Presented By: Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi and Khawaja Muhammad Saeed, JJ
Kh. Ali Muhammad, Advocate for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq, Advocate for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑‑‑Appellant
VERSUS
HASSAN SHAMSI‑‑‑Respondent
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 6
Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
Section: 12
Law: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974
Section: 113
(a) General Clauses Act (X of 1897) S.6‑‑‑Repeal of amendment in law was to be taken about in the same sense so far as the application of S.6 of the General Clauses Act. 1897 was concerned‑‑‑No distinction existed between repealing laws and laws which merely professed to amend‑‑‑If the amendment of the existing law was small, it would he amendment and if it was extensive, it would repeal the law and re‑enact the same‑‑ Different effect need not be given to repeal and amendment. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) S.12‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 113‑‑‑General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.6‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of contract‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Delay, condonation of‑‑‑Amendment in law, effect of‑‑‑Suit was filed three years and four months after cause of action had arisen‑‑‑No separate application was filed or any ground was taken by the plaintiff in plaint seeking condonation of delay‑‑‑Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1908 providing three years' period for filing suit subsequently was amended and by the amendment the period of three years for filing suit was increased to six years‑‑‑Said amendment would not render previous provision of Limitation Act, 1908 void from the date of its inception‑‑Limitation period of three years provided in Art. 113 before its amendment was available to the plaintiff and he was not justified in law in filing suit after three years as the new law of limitation could not be construed retrospectively in case of plaintiff because that would destroy right vested in the defendant by lapse of time as remedy under law against him had become time‑barred. (c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) S.42‑‑‑Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Factual matters‑‑‑Question of fact could not be resolved in appeal by Supreme Court. (d) Interpretation of statutes 'Repeal' and 'amendment'‑‑‑Distinction. Date of hearing: 3rd May, 2001. …