Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 1538 2001 SLD 1538 2001 SCMR 1647
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1152 of 2001 and Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.6Q of 1999, decision dated: 10-05-2001
MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ
Mumtaz Hussain Baqsi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehta W.N Kohli, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court, Ihsanul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and S.A.M. Qaudri. Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents

Mst. MUSSARAT ARA KHANNUM

VS

UMAID ALI and another

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) -- S. 12Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)Suit for performance of agreement to sell landRevisionValidityLeave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider the point as to whether the impugned judgment had been passed on wrong premises of law and facts and the same was an outcome of nonreading and misreading of the material pieces of evidence substantiating the assertion of the -Petitioner; whether the permission to withdraw the appeal and subsequent entertainment of revision petition was illegal in view of valuation of the suit and consequently the impugned judgment was without jurisdiction and lawful authority having no legal effect at all, whether after holding that -Petitioner and -Respondents both were required to pay courtfee on the value of the suit the appeal could have been treated as timebarred; whether in view of the chequered history of the case, it was a fit case for condonation of delay which mainly occurred due to bona fide impression and belief that appeal was to be filed before the High Court; whether the evidence which had come on record had been appreciated in its true perspective by the High Court while deciding the revision petition on merits when the appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on the sole ground of limitation; whether the agreement of. sale could be enforced in absence of any consideration and its implications which aspect of the matter escaped notice from the High Court; whether the calculations regarding time as _ made by the Appellate Court and relied upon by the High Court were contrary to record and -Petitioner could not justify the consumption of time between specified dates; whether the decree of trial Court in view of valuation of the suit was patently without lawful authority and had been passed in exercise of jurisdiction which was never conferred upon it, therefore, the same being void was liable to be struck down as against such void decree no period of limitation would run; whether the -Petitioner could have been nonsuited only on the basis of an exhibited document implications whereof were never discussed by the…
🔒
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