Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 66-P of 1979, decided on 9th February, 1981.
Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal granted to consider whether it was incumbent upon Copying Agency to serve a notice on petitioner in regard to copies of judgments having been made or whether specific date given to petitioner to collect same so as to burden petitioner with knowledge of availability of copies for filing appeal within limitation period.
M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 9th February, 1981.
-The respondents filed a suit against the peti tioner for a declaration that they were the owners in possession of 1/2 share in certain Khasra numbers and mortgages in possession of 1/4th share in other Khasra numbers which was decreed by the Civil Judge, Second Class, Nowshera, on 23rd of April, 1968, to the extent that they were granted the declaration in regard to a 1/2 share in the entire suit land. The other relief was refused. On appeal by the respondents, the Additional District Judge, Peshawar, modified the decree by judgment dated 29th of March, 1968, and held them to be the owners in possession of the land mentioned in Mad B' but rejected their prayer in regard to the land in Mad. A'. The petitioner herein filed a Regular Second Appeal in the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, against this judgment which was dismissed as barred by three days.
2. In seeking leave in appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner con tends that the time, for the purpose of limitation, was computed from the date on which the copies of the judgment and the decree were made ready, that is 27th of June, 1968, but if it was computed from the date on which it was delivered, that is 12th of July, 1968, the appeal would have been in time. In contending so the learned counsel stated that from the testimony of the witnesses examined at the stage of the appeal it was clear that no notice was A served on the petitioner by the copying agency in regard the copies having been made ready nor any specific date was given as to when the copies would be ready for collection ; and, therefore, in its absence, the petitioner would not have known about it and further that he should not be burdened with its knowledge. This submission requires consideration.
3. Accordingly, we would grant leave to appeal to the petitioner. Security for costs Rs.2,500. In the meantime the respondents are directed not to alienate the land with out the permission of this Court. The appeal, arising out of this petition, should be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer