2008 SCMR 913 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN through L.Rs. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 SCMR 913 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari and Zia Perwez, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN through L.Rs. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 SCMR 913 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 SCMR 913 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari and Zia Perwez, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 SCMR 913 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN through L.Rs. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd March, 2008.
- 3. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners, contended that since the limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, the trial Court, was required to frame an issue and allow the parties to lead evidence according to the settled principles of law. He referred to the case of Abdul Hamid and another v. Dilawar Hussain alias Bhalli and others 2007 SCMR 945 in support of his contentions.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur, dated 4-4-2007 passed in C.Ps. Nos.D-296 to 300 of 2002).
Ss. 12, 39 & 54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.113
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suit for specific performance of contract, sale cancellation and permanent injunction
Plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11 C.P.C. on the ground that it was barred by time
Revision petition and then constitutional petition against said rejection order, had been dismissed
Plaint had shown that plaintiff had filed suit beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Art. 113 of Limitation Act, 1908
Trial Court, in circumstances was not required to frame issue and record evidence
Argument advanced by counsel for the plaintiff was absolutely misconceived and not tenable
No infirmity or illegality existed in the judgment delivered by the High Court same warranted no interference
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Abdul Hamid and another v. Dilawar Hussain alias Bhalli and others 2007 SCMR 945 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.
The judgment, dated 4-4-2006 passed by High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench, Sukkur, in constitutional jurisdiction has been assailed through these petitions for leave to appeal.
2. The plaint in the respective suits filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for specific performance of contract, sale cancellation and permanent injunction against the respective defendants/respondents was rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground that it was barred by time. The revisions filed by the petitioner were dismissed. The constitutional petitions filed by him also met with the same fate.
3. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners, contended that since the limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, the trial Court, was required to frame an issue and allow the parties to lead evidence according to the settled principles of law. He referred to the case of Abdul Hamid and another v. Dilawar Hussain alias Bhalli and others 2007 SCMR 945 in support of his contentions.
4. We have considered the submissions and examined the respective plaints as well as judgments and orders passed by the Courts below. On perusal of paragraph 18 of the plaint it appears that the petitioner in the plaint averred that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff in the month of January, 2000 when the petitioners approached the defendants, to sale the suit property after issuance of T.O. Form. The plaint in the suits were admittedly filed on 5-1-2004. Evidently the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 113 of the Limitation Act it must be stated that the fact of limitation is evident from the averments made in the plaint itself. In .such circumstances, the trial Court was not required to frame issue and record evidence. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is absolutely misconceived and not tenable. There is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment delivered by the High Court. It warrants no interference. Accordingly the petition is dismissed and leave refused. H.B.T./M-9/SC Petition dismissed.