Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 696 1982 SLD 696 1982 PLD 88
Supreme Court of Pakistan

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND NASIM HASSAN SHAH, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

ABDUL GHAFFAR AND OTHERS

VS

Mst. MUMTAZ

Law:

Section:

(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XV1t of 1979)--- S. 21 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 156.& 152­ Appeal-Limitation-High Court to which appeal lies under S. 21 of Ordinance XVII of 1979-Same High Court as mentioned in Art. 156 of Limitation Act, 1908-Contention that period of 30 days, provided in Ordinance XVII of 1979 same as provided for first appeal to District Court under Art. 156 and same not different from period of 90 days provided under Art. 156, for filing appeal before High Court, held, not correct.-[Limitation]. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)----Ss. 29(2)(a)(b), 3 & 5 read with Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 21-Condonation of delay-Clauses (a) & (b) of S. 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908, in context of Ordinance XVII of 1979-Held, do exclude S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908.-[Condonation of delay­ Interpretation of statutes]. Subsection (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1908 relates to special and local laws. The Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, it has been admitted, is such a law. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under this law (thirty days) is different from the period prescribed by Article 156 of the Limitation Act; therefore, as provided in section 29(2), the provisions of section 3 thereof would apply to such a situation, but subject to the exclusions contained in section 29 itself. When section 3 of the Limitation Act is applied, the provisions of sections 4 to 25 of that Act would get (normally) attracted by virtue of section 3. Hut if it is a case covered by section 29, the provisions of sections 4 to 25 would apply only to the extent that any of them have not been excluded by the combined reading of clauses (a) and (b) of section 29(2). And, it is not denied that the said two clauses when read together in the context of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 do exclude section 5 of the Limitation Act. Messrs Muqtada Khan Iqtida Khan v. Allah Rakhi Begum 1981 CLC 568 and Sved Muhammad v. Mazhar Alt Khan PLD 1981 Kar. 76 approved. Elahi Bakhsh v. Chief Administrator Waqf Property Law Notes 1970 SC 358 and Syed A Tahmud Alam v. Syed Mehdi Hussain and 2 others PLD 1970 Lah. 6 ref.…
🔒
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