1989SCMR318 (PLP)
Mst. JAMEELA HAMEED — Petitioner Versus ATTA MUHAMMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR318 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. JAMEELA HAMEED — Petitioner Versus ATTA MUHAMMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR318 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR318 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR318 (PLP) (Mst. JAMEELA HAMEED — Petitioner Versus ATTA MUHAMMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaki-ud-Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent,
- Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988.
- Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 2-8-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. 825/1982)
S. 12(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Suit of petitioner, challenging ex parte decree, passed in favour of respondent in a dispute regarding demarcation and identity of two properties adjacent to each other, on ground of fraud, misrepresentation and errors of jurisdiction, dismissed as barred by time- Appeal and revision of petitioner also failed without so far having been able to avail of opportunity to defend herself against claim of respondent on merits- Leave to appeal granted to examine whether in circumstances of case petitioner's suit was barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A dispute regarding demarcation and identity of two properties adjacent to each other, belonging to the two parties in this case, was resolved in the first round of litigation initiated by the respondent, in his favour through an ex parte decree against the petitioner. The petitioner/judgment‑debtor in that litigation filed appeal which was dismissed, but during the pendency of that appeal she had filed a civil suit challenging the ex parte decree on grounds including fraud, misrepresentation, illegalities and errors of jurisdiction. This suit was dismissed as time‑barred. Her appeal and revision have also, accordingly, been dismissed. Thus, the petitioner has failed in the two litigations throughout without so far having been able to avail of the opportunity to defend herself against the claim of the respondent, on merits. After hearing the learned counsel, we consider it a fit case to examine whether in the circumstances of this case the petitioner's suit in the second round, was barred by time. Leave to appeal. accordingly, is granted. Security Rs. 2,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary documents. M.Y.H./J‑34/S Leave granted.