1989 PLP 1668(1) (SCMR)
CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL AHMAD and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1668(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL AHMAD and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1668(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1668(1) (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 1668(1) (SCMR) (CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL AHMAD and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gulzar Hasan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Limitation‑‑Plea of limitation was not raised before Trial Court to which the plea initially related‑‑Such plea could not be raised as of right before Supreme Court simply because Trial Court was under a duty to examine the question of limitation‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendent in a suit for recovery of damages, against the dismissal by the High Court of its Civil Revision (against the dismissal of his time‑barred appeal). The only point urged by the learned counsel is that the respondents' suit was time‑barred. When questioned whether the plea of limitation was, in that behalf, raised before the trial Court and an issue was sought to be framed, the learned counsel answered in the negative; but contended that this plea having been taken in the first appeal Court, that Court and the High Court were duty bound to examine and decide it on merits. We do not agree with him. It has been held in a number of cases decided by this Court that if a party does not raise the plea of limitation before the Court concerned to which the plea initially relates, the same could not be raised as of right before a higher forum simply because the I lower forum was under a duty to examine the question of limitation. As admitted,' this question was not raised before the trial Court. In the circumstances of this case, we would not examine it at this stage. On merits also, we have not been able to find any infirmity in the impugned judgment Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused with the remarks that the petitioner may recover the amount in question from its employee/s found in default. M.A.K./C‑39/S Leave refused.