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 No. 165 of 1985, decided on 13th November, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 22‑1‑1985 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.19 of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Limitation‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Leave granted to examine contention that point of limitation was not decided according to law in a suit for pre‑emption where plaint was returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction‑, re‑presented during absence of Presiding Officer and objection raised in written statement that suit was time‑barred.‑‑[Limitation‑‑Pre‑emption].
S. Laqa Haider Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 13th November, 1985.
The petitioners purchased land on 15‑8‑1967 from the third respondent. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 thereupon, filed a suit for pre‑emption in the Court of Civil Judge, Chiniot on 2‑9‑1968. Admittedly on the date of institution the court‑fee of Rs.743.40 only was paid. However, by an ex parte amendment the valuation of the suit was changed and fixed at Rs.20,000 and on such valuation the suit fell beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, and the plaint was, therefore, returned to the plaintiff under Order VII, rule 10, C . P. C . The plaint was then represented on 7‑9‑1968 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jhang during the absence of the Presiding Officer and was received by the Reader of the Court. It was put up before the Court on 9‑9‑1968.
2. In the background of the above facts, the petitioners raised objection in their written statement that the suit was time‑barred and an issue was framed in this behalf. The issue was decided against the petitioners and so was the appeal by the learned Additional District Judge. Finally, the same point was raised in a Second Appeal before the High Court which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the point of limitation was not decided according to law needs examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,500. The stay already granted in the suit shall continue meanwhile.
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