Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913

Section: 30

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115,149,O.VII,R.11

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 4,5

(a) Punjab Pre emption Act (I of 1913) S. 30 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 4 Pre emption suit Limitation Period of limitation for filing suit expiring during summer vacation of the Courts Pre emptor would be entitled to file such suit on the first day of re opening of Court. (b) Punjab Pre emption Act (I of 1913) S. 15 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.149 & O.VII, R.11 Deficiency in court fees Time to be granted by Trial Court for making up such deficiency Pre emptor would be entitled as of right to make up deficiency in court fees which has to be quantified by Court Where such deficiency was made up within the specified time allowed by Court, pre emptor could not be non suited. Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakoor and another PLD 1984 SC 289 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 115 Revision application Limitation for No limitation has been prescribed for filing revision nor any rules have been framed by High Court in exercise of its rule making powers providing limitation therefor Mere fact that period of ninety days had expired would not by itself be sufficient for non suiting petitioner in revision petition,. Aziz Din and another v. Qadir Bakhsh and 2 others PLD 1987 Lah. 119; Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khudayar and another PLD 1975 SC 678 and Karamat Hussain and others v. Muhammad Zaman and others PLD .1987 (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 115 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5 Limitation and laches Distinction between Delay simpliciter, would be no ground for dismissal of a cause unless same amounted to laches and was so inordinate or undue that to grant relief to one party would work injustice on the other Laches, therefore, could not be equated with statutory bar of limitation Pre emptor could not be non suited on ground of laches alone especially when and decree of Appellate Court have been found to be without any legal basis whatsoever and contrary to law To allow such a decision to remain in the field would tantamount to perpetuating injustice which could not be allowed to prevail. Pakistan Post Office v. Settlement Commissioner 1987 SCMR 1119; Majidan Khanum v. District Judge, Vehari 1984 CLC…

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