1989 PLP 1543 (SCMR)
GHULAM HUSSAIN and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT through his Legal Heirs Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1543 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT through his Legal Heirs Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1543 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1543 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1543 (SCMR) (GHULAM HUSSAIN and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT through his Legal Heirs Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate instructed by SAbul Asim JaK Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Saleem Sehgal, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing. 15th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 17th December, 1983 in E.SA. No.723 of 1969). Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983)‑ ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3 ‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner along with objections of respondent that even if execution application was not held to be time‑barred petition would not fructify on account of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983) where under the petition would abate. Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Muhammad Shari and others P L D 1985 S C 407 rer.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a decree holder side against the acceptance by the High Court, of an execution second appeal filed by the respondents/judgment‑debtor side. According to dates and facts given by the learned counsel for the petitioners the decree in this case was passed in favour of the petitioners' side in 1955. It was upheld by the High Court on an appeal on 11‑7‑1962. The High Court also dismissed an application for leave to appeal on 5‑7‑1965. In the meanwhile the execution of the decree remained stayed by the order of the Court. Subsequently an application filed on 27‑2‑1968 was objected to as time‑barred from the date of the original appellate decision by the High Court on 11‑7‑1962. The trial Court dismissed the objection application filed by the judgment‑debtor respondent side. They failed in first appeal but the High Court allowed their second appeal on the ground that the time for filing of execution petition had started running after the dismissal of R.SA. by the High Court on 11‑7‑1962 and not after the dismissal of the C.P.S.LA. on 5‑7‑1965; on the assumption that notwithstanding the subsequent proceedings in the High Court and a stay order issued by that Court, it was the duty of the decree‑holder to file the execution application within three years of the dismissal of the R.SA. by the High Court. Learned counsel has reiterated the petitioner's position taken m the High Court as also the grounds of this petition. Learned counsel for the respondents/caveators has contended; firstly, that this petition is time‑barred by one day, and secondly, that in any case even if the execution application is not held to be time‑barred, this petition would not fructify on account of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983), where‑under this petition would abate. Reference has also been made to 'Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others (P L D 1985 S C 407). After hearing the learned counsel, while condoning the delay we grant leave to appeal to examine the questions raised and involved in this matter. Security Rs5,
000. Appeal shall be prepared on its present record with direction to the parties to file all additional documents which would be necessary for disposal of appeal. M.A.K./G‑191/S Leave granted.