Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petitions Nos. 39‑K and 47‑K of 1986, decided on 25th June, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 1‑9‑1985 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 226 of 1976).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑Revision‑‑High Court deciding question of limitation after full discussion of facts of case‑‑Order impugned‑‑Held: Such findings, in facts and circumstances of case, were unexceptionable‑‑No question of law arising, leave to appeal refused.
Mirza A. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th June, 1986.
This order will dispose of the above two petitions for leave to appeal which arise out of a common judgment of the learned Sind High Court whereby two revision applications brought by the respondent in each case, were allowed.
2. The dispute in this case relates to survey No. 271 in Ward No. 1, Jacobabad, which belongs to the two petitioners, namely, Ghulam Hussain and Habibullah in equal shares. The respondent filed suits for specific performance of contract of sales, dated 1958 whereby the petitioners had agreed to convey their share in the above survey number. The agreement between the respondent and the petitioner Ghulam Hussain was in writing while the other agreement between the petitioner Habibullah, and the respondent was oral. The suits were decreed by the learned trial Judge. The petitioners filed First Appeals which were allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jacobabad and the suits of the respondent of specific performance were dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Aggrieved by this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 30‑4‑1976 the respondent filed two revision applications in the High Court bearing Nos. 226 and 227 of 1976 which were allowed as per impugned judgment and the judgments and decrees, dated 31‑10‑1974 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jacobabad were restored with cost throughout.
3. The main question raised in the revision applications before the High Court with regard to the applicability of section 113 of the Limitation Act stands decided on facts of the case. The learned Judge in the High Court after full discussion of the facts of the case came to hold that the petitioners had failed to prove that the plaintiff /respondent had brought the suits beyond the period of three years from the date of any notice of refusal of performance of the contracts by the petitioners. Such findings of the learned Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are unexceptionable. No question of law arises in these petitions justifying grant‑of leave to appeal, which are dismissed accordingly.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer