1988 PLP 1405 (SCMR)
RARIM BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus RAHIM BAKHSH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1405 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan. JJ |
| Parties | RARIM BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus RAHIM BAKHSH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1405 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1405 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1405 (SCMR) (RARIM BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus RAHIM BAKHSH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. M.A. Zakir for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th May, 1988.
- Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. M.A. Zakir for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Regular Second Appeal No.73 of 1981, dated 14-9-1981). --S.21--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.14--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.21--Pre-emption suit--Limitation--Suit filed within time before Civil Court--One of the grounds for pre-emption being tenancy, suit was transferred to the Revenue Court where it remained pending for some time--Revenue Court, ultimately found that it was not such a case which could be tried by it and it was again sent back to the Civil Court which decided it--Contention that time spent before wrong Court after the transfer by Civil Court, could not be excluded from period of limitation--Held, suit had been filed before the expiry of the period of limitation in the Civil Court which ultimately decided it--When for a temporary period a defect was discovered regarding filing of suit before Civil Court, same got cured by return of the suit to the Civil Court subsequently-- Presentation of the plaint in the Civil Court could not be said to be improper, notwithstanding any technical defect--Provisions of S.14, Limitation Act, 1908 as also S.21, C.P.C., could also be pressed in service in support of the judgment. Muhammad Ismail v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore 1985 S C M R 112 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendee's side in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The only point pressed by the learned counsel is that the suit of the respondents' side was time‑barred. Therefore, it should have been dismissed accordingly. The respondents' suit was duly filed within time before the Civil Court. As one of the grounds for pre‑emption was tenancy, the suit was transferred to the revenue Court where it remained pending for some time. The revenue Court ultimately found that it was not such a case which could be tried by it; the same was again sent by it (revenue Court) to the Civil Court which ultimately decided it. According to the learned counsel, the time spent before wrong Court after the transfer by the Civil Court, could not be excluded from the period of limitation. The argument is without force. The suit had been filed before the expiry of the period of limitation in the Civil Court which ultimately decided it. If for a temporary period a defect was discovered regarding filing of the suit before the Civil Court, the same got cured by the return of the suit to the Civil Court subsequently. It cannot be said that the presentation of the plaint in the Civil Court before the expiry of period of limitation was not proper, notwithstanding any technical defect. Moreover, the provisions contained in section 14 of the Limitation Act as also section 21, C.P.C. could be pressed in service in support of the impugned judgment. The judgment of this Court in' Muhammad Ismail v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore 1985 S C M R 112 also goes against the petitioner. Looked at from whatever angle, there is no force in this petition. Therefore, leave to appeal is refused. M.B.A.IK‑59/S Petition dismissed.