Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 637 1980 SLD 637 1980 PLD 477
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 575 of 1965, decided on 18th March 1980
AFTAB HUSSAIN, J
Masood Zikria for Appellant. Mian Qubran Sadlq Ikram for
Respondent

Mst. SHEEDI--Appellant

VS

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-- Art. 95-Time, running of-Appellant's suit dismissed after trial of several issues-Appeal before Additional District Judge also dismissed on finding of suit being time barred under Art. 95Limitation, held, started running not from filing of written statement but from time of filing of suit. (e) Limitation Act (IX of 1988)-- Art. 95-Limitation for setting aside decree obtained by fraud-Plaintiff not party to decree or to fraudulent transaction-Article 95, held, not applicable to ease.-[Decree]. Sunderappa v. Sri Ramulu 30 Mad. 402 ; Bijoy Gopal v. Krishna Mahishi 34 Cal. 329 ; Rupa Jogesheet v. Krishnaji 9 Bom. 169 and Mst. Hamida Begum v. Mst. Murad Begum and others P L D 1975 S C 624 rel. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) --.---Art. 95-Applicability of-Person impleaded as party in suit impersonated by some body else and decree obtained on basis of such impersonation--.Decree obtained in such case, held, not different from case where decree obtained against a person not party to suit at all -- Article 95, further held, would not apply to such case. Kallprasanna Slaha and others v. Haripada Ghosh Hajra and others A I R 1931 Cal. 69 and Ghunder Nath Choudhury v. Tirthananda Thakur I L R 3 Cal. 504 ref. (d) Natural justice, principle of-Maxim : Audi alteram partem--Order or decree passed in violation of law providing for hearing of party held, absolutely void. Allah Ditta v. Mamber, Board of Revenue P L D 1976 Lab. 897 ref. JUDGMENT This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of Mr. Muhammad Hussain Qazi, Additional District Judge, Mianwali by which he maintained the decree of the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit passed by the learned trial Court on 24-5-1974. 2. The facts of the case are that a civil suit was filed by Muhammad Siddique claiming that he had purchased the property of Mst. Sheedi plaintiff which she had inherited from her father. This suit was decreed on 30-7-1954 and a decree purporting to be a consent decree was passed on the basis of the statement of Mst. Sheedi. Three mutations were attested on the basis of this decree but strangely enough Mutation No. 4510 appears to have been attested on…
🔒
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