1994 PLP 1134 (SCMR)
Mst. ZUBAIDA IMRAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. ABDUL SATTAR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1134 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ZUBAIDA IMRAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. ABDUL SATTAR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1134 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1134 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1134 (SCMR) (Mst. ZUBAIDA IMRAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. ABDUL SATTAR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th October, 1993.
- 9. The learned counsel for petitioner, contended that memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner in the High Court on 13‑2‑1986, would show that it was due to inadvertence, that Imran Hassan Siddiqui, was impleaded as respondent No.3 instead of Muhammad Arif Khan. It was submitted that the omission was not wilful.
- 10. We have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner. He, however, was unable to explain the inordinate delay occurred in impleading Muhammad Arif Khan as respondent. As a matter of fact it was Abdul Sattar respondent No.1 who had moved the application on 4‑5‑1986, for the dismissal of appeal which led her to file application for impleading Muhammad Arif Khan as one of the respondents in the appeal.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 19‑5‑1992, in CA. No. 903/1990). (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96 & O.I, R.9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Non‑impleading of one of decree‑holders as a respondent in first appeal‑‑‑Application for impleading decree‑holder and for condonation of delay filed long after limitation had expired were dismissed by High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether omission to implead one of decree‑holders as respondent in appeal was inadvertent and could not be condoned. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R. 1‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment ‑‑‑Non‑impleading one of decree‑holders in first appeal‑‑‑Supreme Court in its judgment under review had found that petitioner committed gross negligence in not impleading one of decree‑holders as respondent in appeal within prescribed period of limitation and dismissed appeal‑‑‑Petitioner in his review application contending that omission to implead one of decree‑holders as respondent in appeal was due to inadvertence and such omission was not wilful‑‑‑Petitioner, however, was unable to explain inordinate delay occurring in impleading a decree‑holder as a respondent‑‑‑One of respondents, in fact had moved application for dismissal of appeal which led petitioner to file application for impleading one of decree holders as a respondent in appeal‑‑‑High Court as also Supreme Court after hearing case and perusing record had found that non‑impleading of a necessary party in appeal within limitation amounted to gross negligence on the part of petitioner‑‑‑Case being not a fit one to review earlier judgment of Supreme Court, application for review of judgment of Supreme Court was dismissed. ORDER
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑Mst. Zubaida Imran petitioner herein seeks review of judgment dated 19‑5‑1992, of this Court whereby Civil Appeal No.903/90 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The present respondents Nos.1 to 3 instituted suit against the petitioner and her husband namely, Imran Hassan Siddiqui, for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 13‑10‑1982, in respect of the suit property. The learned Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, on 21‑1‑1986, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
3. The petitioner assailed the judgment and decree dated 21‑1‑1986, through Regular First Appeal No.20 of 1986, in the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench) but did not implead Muhammad Arif Khan, one of then decree holders as respondent in the appeal, and instead arrayed Imran Hassan Siddiqui, her husband as respondent No.3 in the appeal.
4. On 4‑5‑1986, Ch. Abdul Sattar respondent No.1 filed application for the dismissal of appeal on the ground that the petitioner failed to implead Muhammad Arif Khan as respondent in the appeal within period of limitation, the appeal had abated and merited dismissal.
5. The relevant record reveals, that the petitioner filed application on 12‑2‑1987, for impleading Muhammad Arif Khan as respondent in appeal and on 2‑3‑1987 moved another application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay occurred in impleading him as respondent in the appeal beyond the period of limitation.
6. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of Lahore High Court on 19‑6‑1988, dismissed the application on merit.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed petition for leave to appeal. This Court on 21‑5‑1990, granted leave to consider whether the omission to implead Muhammad Arif Khan, as respondent in the appeal was inadvertent and could be condoned.
8. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, on 19‑5‑1992, found that the petitioner committed gross negligence in not impleading Muhammad Arif Khan as respondent in appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation and dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition.
9. The learned counsel for petitioner, contended that memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner in the High Court on 13‑2‑1986, would show that it was due to inadvertence, that Imran Hassan Siddiqui, was impleaded as respondent No.3 instead of Muhammad Arif Khan. It was submitted that the omission was not wilful.
10. We have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner. He, however, was unable to explain the inordinate delay occurred in impleading Muhammad Arif Khan as respondent. As a matter of fact it was Abdul Sattar respondent No.1 who had moved the application on 4‑5‑1986, for the dismissal of appeal which led her to file application for impleading Muhammad Arif Khan as one of the respondents in the appeal.
11. The learned Judges in the High Court as well as of this Court after hearing the case and perusing the record, found that it was a case of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner.
12. In our view this is not a fit case to review the impugned judgment passed by this Court. This petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. AA./Z‑162/S Review dismissed.