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 Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 261‑R of 1985, decided on 15th October, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, dated 27th February, 1985 in Civil Revision No. 139 of 1983).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) , S . 115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Question of limitation‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine contention that although Appellate Court had specifically held that suit of respondent was time‑barred, High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction while restoring decree awarded in favour of respondent by Trial Court, did not advert to question of limitation.
Sh. Ziauddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: October 15, 1986.
The background in which this petition for leave to appeal is filed is this that a suit was brought by the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents namely Mst. Amir Fatima alleging that she was in possession as owner of a portion of the disputed property basing her title on a written gift deed, dated 16th May, 1966 Which the present petitioner had executed in her favour inter alia on her marrying his stepson namely Aftab Ahmad respondent No. 1. She married respondent No. 1 on 17th May, 1966 and claimed to have occupied the disputed property as full owner ever since that date. The trial Court decreed the suit but on appeal preferred by the petitioner the decree was set aside. Thereupon Mst. Amir Fatima filed civil revision challenging the appellate Court's judgment which was accepted on 27th February, 1985 by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench.
The main point which is being urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Court had specifically held that the suit of Mst. Amir Fatima was time‑barred but the learned High Court Judge while exercising his revisional jurisdiction and restoring the decree awarded in favour of Mst. Amir Fatima by the trial Court had not at all adverted to the question of limitation. The contention needs further examination. Leave is granted. Security for costs Rs.1,000. The appeal will be heard on the same record.
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