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. 550 of 1985, decided on 23rd June, 1985.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26‑3‑1985, passed in Civil Revision No. 213/85).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)‑‑Application challenging validity of judgment on plea of fraud/misrepresentation‑ Limitation of‑‑Leave granted to resolve divergence of view between two High Courts through an authoritative pronouncement by Supreme Court on questions involved.
Sikandar v. Saleh Muhammad 1983 C L C 1590 and Malik Inayatullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan P L D 1985 Pesh. 23 ref.
Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd June, 1985.
‑The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly that the petitioners and the respondents had a dispute with regard to a part of Property No. 138‑Anarkali, Lahore. The parties referred the matter to an Arbitrator. The award was made rule of the Court vide judgment dated 4‑2‑1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore. Respondents 1 to 8 thereafter filed an application under section 12 (2), C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment of the Civil Judge, on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. This application was, however, dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on 14‑1‑1985 on the ground that it was barred by time. In holding so, he relied on Sikandar v. Saleh Muhammad 1983 C ‑L C 1590, wherein the view taken is that the period of limitation for application under section 12(2), C.P.C. was governed by Article 173 of the Limitation Act. The learned High Court, however, relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Sind reported as Malik Inayatullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan P L D 1985 Pesh. 23 wherein after considering the aforementioned judgment of the Karachi High Court it was held that such application was governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act. This view of the Lahore High Court has been challenged by the petitioners through the present petition.
2. Since there is divergence of view on the above‑noted question between the High Courts we feel that the matter requires an authoritative Pronouncement by this Court on the question involved in this case. Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose.
Security in the sum of Rs.1,000.
To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents.
3. Stay already granted shall continue.
4. Since proceedings in the trial Court are being stayed by this Court the appeal arising out of this petition should be fixed for hearing at a very early date.
M.I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer