Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 596 of 1982, decided on 9th May, 1984,

(On appeal from the Judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 22‑4‑1982 in Civil Revision No. 1646 of 1981).

-----Art. 185(3)‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 14‑Application for setting aside a degree‑Limitation‑Exclusion of time spent in erro neous prosecution‑Question whether such time could be excluded under S. 14, Limitation Act ‑Leave to appeal‑Granted to examine question of law which is of general public importance.

General Secretary, P. W. R. Union (Workshop), Lahore v. The Registrar, Trade Unions and another P L D 1969 Lab. 1080 and Shah Muhammad v. Ghulam and another P L D 1970 S C 196 ref.

Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 9th May, 1984.

.‑The question that arose in this case is whether the time spent in erroneously prosecuting an application for setting aside a decree, as it was not competent, can be excluded by the application of section 14 of the Limitation Act.

The learned Judge in the High Court relying upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in General Secretary, P. W. R. Union (Workshop), Lahore v. The Registrar, Trade Unions and another (P L D 1969 Lah. 1080) has held that the time which was thus spent having been spent bona fide could be excluded but in the case of Shah Muhammad v. Ghulam and another (P L D 1970 S C 196) this Court appears to have expressed a contrary view.

The question is one of law and of general public importance. We would, accordingly, grant leave to appeal.

Security in the sum of Rs. 1,000.

The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any Further, proceedings before the learned Appellate Court shall‑remain stayed meanwhile.

S. Q. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.