NAWABZADA MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SHAHDADPUR
The Articles 42 & Su 54 case, injunction restraining and limitation for lucrative profit, the theory applied by the two courts below the present two cases, were earlier dismissed in the year 1988 by the plaintiff, and After the dismissal, the municipal committee built shops on the plot being discussed. The plaintiff filed a second lawsuit in 1998, claiming to own the land on which the municipal committee had already set up shop. The trial court and the lower appellate court had dismissed the case simultaneously and affirmed the plaintiff. The plaintiff had full knowledge of the notice of infringement. Legal right, if any, at this time, the law requires that he approach the court within the time provided by the statute of limitations but he has acted otherwise as a statute of limitations The limits worked on were examined by the Limitation Act 1908. , Or by a particular law under which there were provisions for the relief of any complaint within a specified time period, if any party aggrieved by the law did not approach the appropriate forum within the stipulated period, the complaint would still The rest is but cannot be resolved because if one side has a right to a party which he can enforce against the other. The High Court, in the exercise of ideological jurisdiction, intervened in the harmonious conclusions of the ideological jurisdiction, in the same manner that both the statute of limitation / bribery, after the same right, fell under both the statute of limitation dedicated / submitted in favor of the plaintiff. Refused to do. Under the review, the facts will be rejected by the two courts
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
