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 No.125 of 1980, decided on 2nd March, 1985.
(Against the judgment and order, dated 18‑12‑1979 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R . S . A . No.204 of 1978).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑‑Parties compromised pending appeal before First Appellate Court by which defendants were to pay specified amount on a particular date and were to have acquired plaintiff's share in property failing which appeal was to stand dismissed‑‑Petitioners (defendants) applied for extension of time and on refusal by plaintiff to agree to such extension Court dismissed appeal‑‑Second appeal was also dismissed by High Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused on ground that where parties agreed to a time for performance of duty, it was only by agreement of parties and not otherwise that same could be extended or altered‑‑First Appellate Court and High Court in dismissing appeal observed law laid down by Supreme Court and no grievance could be made of it.
Syed Ahmad Shah and 2 others v. Muhammad Yar and 6 others 1974 S C M R 191 ref.
Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Ch. Muhammad Ismail, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1985.
‑‑The petitioners, who were defendants in a partition suit seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 18‑12‑1979 whereby their regular second appeal was dismissed with costs.
The plaintiff‑respondent was held entitled to one‑sixth share in the house located over eight Marlas. She was given by partition a portion measuring two Marlas on payment of rupees ten thousand. The petitioners and other defendants appealed and in appeal they compromised whereby on payment of rupees twenty‑two thousand in Court on 14‑3‑1978 to plaintiff‑respondent they were to become owners of her share failing which their appeal was to stand dismissed. On 15‑2‑1978 the petitioners applied for extension of time. The first appellate Court enquired of the plaintiff respondent and on her refusal to agree to extension dismissed the appeal. Their second appeal also failed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application was made in time, that the Court could extend the time and that by not passing an appropriate order well in time their case was seriously prejudiced.
The law laid down by this Court in Syed Ahmad Shah and two others v Muhammad Yar and six others 1974 S C M R 191 is that where the parties agree to a time for the performance of a duty then it is only by the agreement of parties and not otherwise that it can be extended or altered. The first appellate Court in doing what it did and the High Court in dismissing the appeal observed the law laid down by this Court and no grievance can be made of it. Leave to appeal is refused.
A.A. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer