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 Appeal from Original Order No.226 of 1978, heard on 7th February, 1984.
---Ss.9 & 96--Suit for possession--Question of limitation closely inter connected with other issues on merits. -Decision only on question of limitation by trial Court--Trial Court, held, to decide all issues together--Case remanded for decision on merits on all issues in appeal.
---S. 96--West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962), S. 2-A [as ammended by West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983)]--Plea of abatment of appeal after promulgation of amending Ordinance, 1983, held, to be taken in the first instance before trial Court.
Munir A. Shaikh for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1, 6 and 7.
Maulvi Ahsan-ul-Haq for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
Date of hearing: 7th February, 1984.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 26-4-1978 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, whereby he decided the question of limitation in a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff/ respondents and remanded the case for decision on other issues on merits in accordance with law.
2. Sole grievance of the appellant is that learned Additional District Judge, while deciding issue No.1, on the question of limitation, has also recorded findings on other issues on merits which could not have been done without recording evidence of the parties. Maulvi Ehsan-ul-Haq learned counsel for the respondents has frankly conceded that question of limitation is closely inter-connected with other issues on merits. I am also inclined to hold that all the issues should be decided together by the trial Court.
3. Mr.Munir A. Sheikh learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the suit pending before the trial Court has abated by operation of law in view of the proclamation of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983. This objection should in the first instance be raised before the trial Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 26-4-1978 of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for decision on merits on all the issues. To this extent the appeal is accepted with no order as to costs.
H.B.T. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer