| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 322 1983 SLD 322 1983 SCMR 448 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 845 of 1982, decision dated: 31st January, 1983. dates of hearing : 29th and 31st January, 1983.(From the order dated 29 6 1982 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No.404/D of 1982)
NASIM HASAN SHAH AND M. S. H. QURAISHI, JJ
Haji Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent
Civil Petition No. 845 of 1982, decision dated: 31st January, 1983. dates of hearing : 29th and 31st January, 1983.(From the order dated 29 6 1982 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No.404/D of 1982)
NASIM HASAN SHAH AND M. S. H. QURAISHI, JJ
Haji Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 2 OTHERS
VS
Mst. SHEEDI
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-Art. 185(3) read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 95¬Limitation Plaintiff respondent withdrawing suit with permission to file fresh suit Point of limitation with respect to fresh suit decided by trial Court against respondent and such order maintained in appeal ¬High Court, in second appeal, without deciding question whether Art. 95, Limitation Act was applicable, remanding case to first appellate Court for giving findings on issues on merits without touching issue about bar of limitation Points raised with regard to limitation not found to have been specifically dealt with by High Court Leave to appeal Granted to consider, inter alia, question of limitation. ORDER M. S. H. QURAISHI J. The petitioners had purchased the disputed land from Mst. Sheedi in pursuance of a decree of the Civil Court dated 30 7 1954. Mst. Sheedi, however, brought a suit on 22 10 1969 for recovery of possession alleging that petitioner No. 1 had occupied the land since last one year on the basis of some decree but that no decree had been passed against her and that even if any, the same was based on fraud and deceit and as such not binding on her. She, however, withdrew that suit on 2 12 1972 with permission to file another and accordingly filed the present suit on 18 1 1973. The question whether the suit was within time was one of the points in issue and the same was found against her by the trial Court by reference to Article 95 of the Limitation Act. Her appeal was dismissed on the basis of only that finding. In her regular second appeal, however, a learned Single Judge of the High Court without deciding the question whether the said Article 95 was applicable held that the same was dependent upon certain…
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