Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 119 1982 SLD 119 1982 CLC 550
Lahore High Court
1981 Regular Second Appeal No. 305 of 1979, decision & hearing Date : 23-11-1981
LEHRASAP KHAN, JUSTICE
Syed Zamir Hussain for Appellant. Muhammad Rashid Ahmad for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Muhammad Siddiq Butt for
Respondent No. 3.

GHULAM RASOOL

VS

DEPUTY DIRECTOR; MILITARY LANDS AND CANTONMENT BOARD AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---S. 33 & O. XX, r. 7 Drawing up decree sheet after - Imperative for trial Court Omission or neglect on part of Court in performance of its statutory duty, held, cannot be taken as a ground for penalising appellant who cannot be deprived of his right of appeal on account .of such omission or neglect. [Decree Appeal (civil)]. Sher Muhammad v. Muhammad Khan and another A I R 1924 Lah. 352; Jaggat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava and others A I R 1961 S C 832 and Manohar Lal v. Manak Chand A I R 1919 Lah. 53 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---S. 33 & O. XX, rr. 6 & 7 and S. 100 read with Limitation Act. (IX of 1908) Trial Court omitting to draw up decree but appellant applying well in time for copy of and decree and filing appeal culminating into impugned order within one month of preparation of decree Appellant, held, cannot be deprived of his right of appeal on ground of limitation by holding period of limitation to commence from date when impugned passed but no decree drawn up, [Decree Appeal (civil)]. This JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY: LEHRASAP KHAN, JUSTICE:---.--- The appellant filed a suit before Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, against the respondents, seeking declaration to the effect that the order of cancellation of leas . in respect of Plot No. 45/215 B. I. Bazar, Lahore Cantonment, from the name of the Appellant's mother, was illegal, ineffective, inoperative and without jurisdiction and that he was still lessee of the said plot. As a consequential relief, the appellant prayed the cancellation of the subsequent lease in respect of the aforesaid plot granted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent No. 3. 2. The appellant contended in the plaint that his mother Mzhr Bibi who had since died leaving the appellant as the sole heir, was granted the lease in respect of the suit plot and she paid the requisite charges. Subsequently, according to appellant's contention, respondent No. 3 started removing earth from the plot and the appellant's mother approached respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to know the correct position and at that occasion she was intimated that her request for lease had in fact…
🔒
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