1986 PLP 1861 (SCMR)
GHULAM HUSSAIN and another — Petitioners Versus MIRAN alias MIR MUHAMMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1861 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ, |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN and another — Petitioners Versus MIRAN alias MIR MUHAMMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1861 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1861 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: 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: 1986 PLP 1861 (SCMR) (GHULAM HUSSAIN and another — Petitioners Versus MIRAN alias MIR MUHAMMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza A. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th June, 1986.
- Mirza A. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 1-9-1985 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 226 of 1976).
Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115--Revision--High Court deciding question of limitation after full discussion of facts of case--Order impugned--Held: Such findings, in facts and circumstances of case, were unexceptionable--No question of law arising, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑This order will dispose of the above two petitions for leave to appeal which arise out of a common judgment of the learned Sind High Court whereby two revision applications brought by the respondent in each case, were allowed. 2. The dispute in this case relates to survey No. 271 in Ward No. 1, Jacobabad, which belongs to the two petitioners, namely, Ghulam Hussain and Habibullah in equal shares. The respondent filed suits for specific performance of contract of sales, dated 1958 whereby the petitioners had agreed to convey their share in the above survey number. The agreement between the respondent and the petitioner Ghulam Hussain was in writing while the other agreement between the petitioner Habibullah, and the respondent was oral. The suits were decreed by the learned trial Judge. The petitioners filed First Appeals which were allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jacobabad and the suits of the respondent of specific performance were dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Aggrieved by this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 30‑4‑1976 the respondent filed two revision applications in the High Court bearing Nos. 226 and 227 of 1976 which were allowed as per impugned judgment and the judgments and decrees, dated 31‑10‑1974 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jacobabad were restored with cost throughout. 3. The main question raised in the revision applications before the High Court with regard to the applicability of section 113 of the Limitation Act stands decided on facts of the case. The learned Judge in the High Court after full discussion of the facts of the case came to hold that the petitioners had failed to prove that the plaintiff /respondent had brought the suits beyond the period of three years from the date of any notice of refusal of performance of the contracts by the petitioners. Such findings of the learned Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are unexceptionable. No question of law arises in these petitions justifying grant‑of leave to appeal, which are dismissed accordingly. M. I. Petition dismissed.