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.
First Rent Appeal No. 277 of 1980 and C. M. A. No. 1015 of 1980 decided on 1st March, 1982.
‑‑‑S. 21 and Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 Section 5 of Limitation Act, held, not applicable to appeals filed under Sind Rented Premises Ordinance.
P L D 1969 Lab. 1039 ; P L D 1974 Lab. 434 Syed Muhammad v. Maihar Ali Khan P L D 1981 Kar. 76 ref.
Shamsuddin A. Qureshi for Appellant.
Moinuddin Ahmad for Respondent.
The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that delay in filing the above appeal was due to the fact, that appellant had suffered an heart attack on 1st January 1980 and consequently he was confines to bad for 12 to 14 weeks under medical advice and in support thereof, the appellant has produced a medical advice and in support thereof, the appellant has produced a medical certificate of Dr. Shabbir A. Khan and as such this was the fit case where the delay ought to be condoned. In this connection the learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon cases reported in P L D 1969 Lab. 1039 and P L D 1974 Lab. 434. The learned Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that provision of section 5 of Limitation Act are not applicable to appeals under section 21 of Sind Rented Premises. Ordinance, 1979 and relied upon case of Syed Muhammad v. Mazhar Ali Khan (P G D 1:981. Kar. 76).
I have carefully considered the above submission of both the learned counsel and have gone through R & P of the trial Court which is before me and have considered the above‑mentioned judgment reported in P L D 1981 Kar. 76 with which I am in respectful agreement. In view of this, I dismiss the above application and hold that section 5 of the Limitation Act, is not applicable to the appeals filed under Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for the reasons given in the above‑mentioned judgment reported in P L D 1981 Kar. 76.
In view of the dismissal of above application the above appeal is also dismissed in limine, with no orders as to costs.
The ad interim stay orders passed in C. M. A. No. 1015/80 are also vacated. However, with the consent of the learned Advocate .for the respondent, the appellant is granted 3 months' time from today, to vacate the premises in his occupation and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent.
M.Y M. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer