| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 1183 1990 SLD 1183 1990 SCMR 1621 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 376 of 1989, decision dated: 2-05-1990.
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, AHDID QADEER CHAUDHRY AND RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Mchr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 376 of 1989, decision dated: 2-05-1990.
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, AHDID QADEER CHAUDHRY AND RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Mchr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
Haji MUHAMMAD NAWAZ
VS
HUSSAIN SHAH
Law:
Section:
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85---Condonation of delay in filing appeal---Appeal was filed as a petition for leave to appeal but had been treated as a direct appeal and on that account was barred by twenty-three days---Appellant had sought condonation of delay on ground that he remained under impression that it was a case of leave to appeal but the office informed him that appeal lay as of right---Petition for leave to appeal was within time but not as a direct appeal--Delay was condoned in circumstances. (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--- ----S. 15---Pre-emption suit was decreed by Trial Court on 29-11-1987---Vendee's appeal failed in Appellate Court but High Court, in revision set aside both s on the authority of Sardar Ali's case reported as PLD 1988 SC 287 that no decree could be passed in pre-emption suit after 31-7-1986 on the ground of being co-owner in estate---Leave to appeal---Appellant's pica that in fact ground of contiguity and easement had also been taken but no decision had been given thereon and independently of co-shareship, such ground could still be available to him for claiming superior right of pre-emption ---No such ground had been taken either in memorandum of appeal or mentioned in the s filed or other material on record---Such ground if taken, required proof which had not been submitted at appropriate stage and same could not be a ground for remand of case---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. ORDER SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--- This appeal has come up for hearing after notice to parties on an application moved by the appellant for restoration of the status quo order. This appeal was filed as a petition for leave to appeal but has been treated as a direct appeal and on that account held to be barred by 23 days. The appellant has sought condonation of delay on the ground that he remained under the impression…
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