1987 PLP 1817 (SCMR)
Mst. AMINA KHATOON and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDULLAH JAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1817 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. AMINA KHATOON and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDULLAH JAN and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1817 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1817 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1817 (SCMR) (Mst. AMINA KHATOON and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDULLAH JAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nasim A. Farooqi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Khalid Malik Advocate Supreme Court and S.A.M. Quadri,
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
- Iftikhar Mahmood, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.2 to 5.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a single Judge of Baluchistan High Court dated 23‑7‑1986 whereby he while allowing an appeal filed by petitioners and another appeal filed by respondents 2 to 5 herein, remanded the suit between the parties to the Additional District Judge II, Quetta "with the direction to pass a judgment and decree according to law, on all issues, except the legal ones which have been decided by me in the foregoing paragraphs." Learned Judge further directed that the parties may be given an opportunity of being heard". The legal issues decided by the learned Judge in the High Court were whether the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and was even otherwise time‑barred. Mr. N.A. Farooqi learned counsel appearing in support of the petition frankly conceded that he cannot press to service the bar of the principle of res judicate in view of the reasons that have found favour with the learned Judge. He however submitted that the predecessor‑in‑interest of the parties, namely, Din Gul, having died on 25‑12‑1961 and the suit having been filed on 13‑11‑1979, it was obviously barred by time. The pleas raised regarding the period of limitation before the High Court was totally different; that was regarding the sale of a portion of the suit‑ property which according to petitioners was known to the plaintiff (respondent‑1 herein). This plea was rejected by the learned Judge in the High Court for proper and cogent reasons. The plea of limitation raised before us in equally untenable, for, respondent‑1 had firstly approached the revenue authorities for the correction of mutation‑entries in respect of the suit property in which his name was omitted. He ultimately succeeded in this behalf on 29‑5‑1979, and it was thereafter, that he filed the suit against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 well within time. There is, therefore, no scope of an argument that the suit was barred by time. So far as the order of remand of the case for fresh judgment and decree, no exception can be taken, and indeed no plea was urged before us. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. M.I. /A‑85/S Petition dismissed.