| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 1319 2001 SLD 1319 2001 SCMR 286 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.459-K of 2000, decision dated: 26-10-2000. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, dated 11-5-2000 passed in R.A. No.34 of 1998)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND RANA BHAGWAN DAS, JJ
Abdur Rahim Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Miss Wajahat Niaz, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents
Civil Petition No.459-K of 2000, decision dated: 26-10-2000. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, dated 11-5-2000 passed in R.A. No.34 of 1998)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND RANA BHAGWAN DAS, JJ
Abdur Rahim Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Miss Wajahat Niaz, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents
ALLAH DINO and anothers
VS
MUHAMMAD SHAH and others
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Revision---Provisions of S. 5, Limitation Act, 1908--- Applicability--- Revision was dismissed by High Court as being time-barred and delay was not condoned---High Court refused to condone the delay for the reasons that the provisions of S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, were not applicable to the proceedings under S. 115, C.P.C. in view of the provision of S. 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908---Validity---Where the statute governing the proceedings did not prescribe period of limitation, the proceedings instituted thereunder would be controlled by Limitation Act, 1908, as a whole---Where the law under which proceedings had been launched had itself prescribed a period of limitation as under S. 115, C.P.C. then the benefits of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, could not be availed unless the same had been made applicable as per S. 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908---No flaw in the judgment of High Court relating to interpretation of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 qua S. 115(2), C.P.C. having been found leave to appeal was refused. 1994 SCMR 883 and 1995 SCMR 197 distinguished. The Canara Bank, Ltd. v. The Warden Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1935 Born. 35; Abdul Ghaffar and others v: Mst. Mumtaz PLD 1982 SC 572; Ali Muhammad and another v. Fazal Hussain and others 1983 SCMR 1239; Collector of Customs (Appraisement) v. Messrs Saleem Adaya, Karachi PLD -1999 Kar. 76 and Haji Muhammad Ashraf v. The State and 3 others -1999 MLD 330 ref. ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J. ----Petitioners seek leave to file appeal against the order, dated May 11, 2000 passed by High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Bench, whereby Revision application filed by them has been dismissed. 2. -Petitioners successfully sought conversion of an incompetent appeal barred by 54 days into a Civil Revision under section 115, C.P.C. with the prayer that the delay occasioned in filing same till the institution of original proceedings i.e. appeal be condoned under section 5 of Limitation Act and an application in respect whereof was separately submitted. Learned counsel appearing for…
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