1989 PLP 1818 (CLC)
Mst. KISHWAR BEGUM‑‑Appellant. Versus QADIR KHAN. and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1818 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, J |
| Parties | Mst. KISHWAR BEGUM‑‑Appellant. Versus QADIR KHAN. and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1818 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1818 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1818 (CLC) (Mst. KISHWAR BEGUM‑‑Appellant. Versus QADIR KHAN. and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan Kundi for Appellant.
- Saadullah Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st January, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.15‑‑Limitation Art (IX of 1908), S:5‑‑Applicability of‑‑Appeal‑‑Competency of‑‑Delay, condonation of‑‑Appeal was filed after more than prescribed period of 30 days alongwith application under S.5, Limitation Act, for condonation of delay ‑Appeal though competent yet same having been filed beyond limitation was time‑barred‑‑Application for condonation of delay was not competent, Limitation Act, 1908 being not applicable to ejectment proceedings. P L D 1982 SC 218, 1983 S C M R 1239 and 1988 S C M R 1863 (1) ref.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Iqbal Khan Kundi for Appellant. Saadullah Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st January, 1989. In the instant case the judgment was delivered by the District Judge as appellate authority under the Rent Restriction Ordinance on 22‑3‑1987, however since the ejectment petition was filed on 14‑4‑1978 prior to the enforcement of N.‑W.F.P. Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979 which has taken away the right of second appeal, as such the SAO is competent. The appellant had applied for the copies of the judgment and decree dated 22‑3‑1987 on 24‑4‑1987 and were delivered the same to her on 23‑4‑1987. She was required under the unamended provisions of subsection (4) of section 15 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance to file the instant SA.O. within 30 days from the date of the appellate order but she has filed the same after more than 30 days for which application (C.M. No.55/87 under Section 5 of‑ the Limitation Act was filed alongwith the SA.O. which was admitted for hearing subject . to all valid objections.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection of limitation under contention that time allowed for filing appeal by special law i.e. The Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 being different from the Limitation Act would exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act. In support of the view he placed reliance on P L D 1982 SC 218, 1983 S C M R 1239 and 1988 S C M R 1863 (1). From the other side there could not be referred any case‑law to the contrary that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was only applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
3. Since the appeal has been found time‑barred and Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to the proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance 4 such in spite of the competency of SA.O. the same is hereby dismissed alongwith the C.M. for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There is, however, made no order as to costs. H.B.T/713/P Appeal dismissed.