1989 PLP 1204 (SCMR)
ABDUS SATTAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus NAWAB DIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1204 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUS SATTAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus NAWAB DIN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1204 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1204 (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: 1989 PLP 1204 (SCMR) (ABDUS SATTAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus NAWAB DIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
- Nemo for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 8‑11‑1984 passed in Civil Revision No.1672‑D of 1984). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Suit could not have been instituted prior to 31‑8‑1975 when the Trial Court was closed, suit filed on 1‑9‑1975 could not be dismissed as time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These two matters arise out of the same case. In C.P. 1140 of 1984 the vendees' side in a pre‑emption matter have called in question the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. The only point now left for examination, according to the learned counsel is of limitation. It was observed in the impugned judgment that taking into consideration the fact that the suit could not have been instituted prior to 31‑8‑1975 when the trial Court was closed, the respondents' suit filed on 1‑9‑1975 could not be dismissed as time‑barred. After some discussion learned counsel had nothing to say against this obvious position. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. In so far as the contempt application (Criminal Original No.10 of 1986) is concerned, we do not consider it proper to deal with it on merits at this stage. Therefore, this petition is also dismissed. M.BA./A‑487/S Petitions dismissed.