2008 PLP 93 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD UMAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 93 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD UMAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 93 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 93 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 93 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD UMAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6.
- Date of hearing: 13th October, 2006.
- 3. We have heard Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. In this case, judgment of the First Appellate Court is dated 27-10-2003 whereas decree was drawn on 8-12-2003. As per Article 156 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act period provided for preferring an appeal before the High Court is 90 days from the date of the order or a decree. In the instant case, as per record, second appeal was filed before the High Court on 19-1-2004, therefore, it was clearly within 90 days from the date of judgment as well as the decree appealed from. It appears that this provision of law escaped the attention of the learned Judge in the High Court, who proceeded to dismiss the appeal under wrong impression that it was out of time.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Circuit, dated 25-4-2005 passed in Second Appeal No.10 of 2004).
S. 100
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.156
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Second appeal before High Court
First Appellate Court had drawn decree one' month and eleven days from its judgment, whereas as per Article 156 of Limitation Act, 1908, period provided for preferring appeal before the High Court was 90 days from the date of order or a decree
Second appeal which was filed before the High Court after two months and twelve days from the judgment and eleven days from drawing of decree, was clearly within prescribed period of 90 days from the date of judgment as well as the decree appealed from
Error of law being apparent on the face of record, petition was converted into appeal and was allowed
Impugned order of the High Court was set aside and case was remanded to High Court for decision afresh on merits, strictly in accordance with law. Respondent No.3 in person.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
This petition is directed against Sindh High Court order, dated 25-4-2005 dismissing second appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of an Additional District Judge, as barred by time.
2. On the last date of hearing, when this petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that second appeal before the High Court was filed within 90 days as per Article 156 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908; that the decree passed by the First Appellate Court was drawn and signed on 8-12-2003 whereas the memo. of second appeal was preferred in the office of the High Court on 19-1-2004. Appeal before the High Court was, therefore, not barred by time, as erroneously reckoned by learned Judge in Chambers. Having noted the submissions, we ordered notice to the respondents, pursuant to which respondent No.3 has entered appearance in person. Notices were issued to all the respondents at their last known addresses and, in law, are presumed to have been duly served. Nevertheless they have not need to appear.
3. We have heard Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. In this case, judgment of the First Appellate Court is dated 27-10-2003 whereas decree was drawn on 8-12-2003. As per Article 156 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act period provided for preferring an appeal before the High Court is 90 days from the date of the order or a decree. In the instant case, as per record, second appeal was filed before the High Court on 19-1-2004, therefore, it was clearly within 90 days from the date of judgment as well as the decree appealed from. It appears that this provision of law escaped the attention of the learned Judge in the High Court, who proceeded to dismiss the appeal under wrong impression that it was out of time.
4. Since the error of law is apparent on the face of record, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. Consequently, impugned order of the High Court is set aside and case remanded to High Court for decision afresh on merits strictly in accordance with law, after notice to parties, and opportunity of hearing to them. H.B.T./M-214/SC Order accordingly.