1990 PLP 660 (SCMR)

Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocate‑ Supreme Court and M. K. N. Kohli, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.f6‑Q of 1988). Khalid Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja M. Afsar, Advocate-on‑Record for Respondents Nos.1 and 2 (in C.P. No.66‑Q of 1988). S. A. M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.3 (in C.P. No.00‑Q of 1988). Date of hearing: 21st May, 1989. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑Both these petitions are directed against the same judgment of the Balochistan High Court dated 27‑7‑1988 by which while holding that the petition filed by petitioners in C.P. L. A. No.61‑Q of 1988 in the District Court was barred by time and dismissing the appeal filed by them, the High Court however granted a part of the relief prayed for by the said petitioners. Facts briefly narrated are that petitioners in C.P.L. A. No.61‑Q of 1988 filed a petition in the District Court, Quetta under section 11 of the Balochistan Wakf Properties Ordinance, 1979 challenging the notification issued by the Chief Administrator Auqaf, Balochistan whereby the properties in dispute were declared as Wakf Properties. Petitioners in C.P.L.A. No.66‑Q of 1988 were joined as respondents in the suit and they contested the petition. Learned District Judge dismissed the petition, but on appeal the High Court while holding that the petition under section 11 of the Ordinance was time‑barred, granted a part of the relief prayed for by the petitioners in C.P.L.A. No.61‑0 of 1988. The grievance of the petitioners in C.P.L.A. No.61‑Q of 1988 is that the provisions of Order XXII1, Rule 1 of' the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to a petition under section 11 of the Ordinance and the view taken by the High Court that the petition was barred by time for the reason of the aforesaid provisions of the Code is not correct. It is further urged that the High Court has also erred in holding that the rest of the properties are Wakf properties. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioners in C.P.L.A. No.06‑Q of 1988 submits that the High Court having held that the petition under section 11 of the Ordinance was time‑barred, erred in adjudicating the dispute on merits of the case and granted a part of the relief. The submissions advanced in support of both the petitions deserve consideration; we therefore grant leave to appeal. Security Rs.1,000 in each case. However, leave is granted in C.P.L.A. No.66‑Q of 1988 subject to the question of limitation which will be considered at the regular hearing. Appeals arising out of these petitions will be heard together on the same; record. It is however open to the parties to file additional documents, if any. Status quo in respect of the suit property shall be maintained till the h appeals are decided. A.A./J‑54/S Leave granted.