Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII,r.11(d)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII,r.11(d)

Law: North West Frontier Province Preemption Act, (X of 1987)

Section: 32,31,13(3)

North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)------Ss. 6, 13, 31 & 32---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Suit for pre-emption---Limitation---Rejection of plaint--Vendee/defendant, instead of filing a written statement submitted an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, R.11, C.P.C. on the ground that suit was barred by limitation having been filed beyond prescribed period of 120 days---Both Trial Court and Appellate Court below having rejected plaint, plaintiff had filed revision against concurrent s of the courts below---Contention of plaintiff was that when a sale-deed was registered, but the Registrar concerned did not give public notice in respect of such registration as envisaged by S.32 of North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987, then the period was to be computed from the date of knowledge of the pre-emptor and not from the date of registration of the sale-deed as provided by S.31 of said Act---Provision with regard to issuance of public notice by the Registrar contained in S.32 of North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987, had no nexus with the period of limitation prescribed by S.31 of said Act for filing a pre-emption suit arising from a registered sale-deed---In a case of a sale effected through a registered sale-deed the period of 120 days would be computed from the date of registration of the sale-deed---Contention that if the Registrar failed to issue public notice as envisaged under S.32 of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987, the period of limitation was to be computed from the date of knowledge by the pre-emptor, was misconceived, as such a provision was neither contained in S.31 of said Act nor could be read into it in view of settled law that courts could not supply "casus omissus"---Impugned of Appellate Court below, was upheld and revision petition was dismissed. Maulana Noor-ul-Haq v. Ibrahim Khalil 2000 SCMR 1305 ref. Muhammad Waheed Anjum for Petitioner. ORDER ZIA-UD-DIN KHATTAK, J.--- Khuda Bakhsh, respondent No.2 herein sold certain land vide registered Sale-deed No.285 dated 7-2-2006 to Matloob Ahmad, respondent No.1 herein for an ostensible price of…

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