2000 PLP 1288 (MLD)
ZAKI AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE BAHAWALPUR
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1288 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sayed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J |
| Parties | ZAKI AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE BAHAWALPUR |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1288 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1288 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sayed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1288 (MLD) (ZAKI AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE BAHAWALPUR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Shamshir Iqbal Chaughtai for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th June, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 42‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑‑Suit for declaration and delivery of possession‑‑‑Delay, condonation of‑‑‑Suit having been decreed plaintiff/decree‑holder applied for execution of decree‑‑‑Notices were issued to defendant‑authority/judgment‑debtor which obtained many opportunities to obey decree, but instead of obeying decree, Authority filed appeal against judgment of Trial Court after about four months of said judgment‑‑‑Delay in filing appeal being about four months, appellant filed application for condonation of said delay‑‑‑Appellate Court below accepted application of condonation of delay despite explanation given by appellant for said delay was not logical‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plea of condonation of delay having been seriously contested, Appellate Court could not condone same without framing issue and recording evidence‑‑‑Unless facts asserted' in application for condonation of delay were proved, delay could not be condoned‑‑ Appellate Court, in circumstances, was not justified to condone long delay in filing appeal without proper inquiry and evidence‑‑‑High Court set aside the judgment of Appellate Court in revision and remanded case to decide afresh according to law.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th June, 1999. This judgment will dispose of C.R. No. 140‑D of 1978.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are, that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner of the property in issue and that the order of cancellation of auction was unlawful and without jurisdiction. A decree for delivery of possession was also claimed. It was the case of petitioner that Plot No. 13/C was purchased by him from respondent in open auction, the entire price was paid through Receipt No. 41, the auction was confirmed on 17‑2‑1972. The petitioner had become owner of the plot and that respondent, illegally cancelled the auction on 27‑3‑1972 without, proper notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The suit was duly contested. After issues and evidence suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 13‑6‑1977.
3. Petitioner applied for execution of the decree, notices were issued to the respondent, the functionaries of the respondents obtained many opportunities to obey the decree and after a considerable time filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge Bahawalnagar vide order, dated 14‑5‑1978. In this revision petition the order of the District Judge is in issue.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the appeal was hopelessly barred by time, there was no good ground for condonation of delay but the learned District Judge illegally condoned the delay without any positive material. It was added that no issue was framed on the point of condonation of delay nor opportunity of evidence allowed and, thus, the delay was condoned on illegal assumptions.
5. No one has entered appearance on behalf of respondents, despite notice, hence proceeded against ex parse.
6. Undeniably the appeal filed by the respondents was barred by time. The delay was about four months. Explanation was that the decree was concealed. On the face of it the explanation did not appear to be logical. The suit was duly contested and decreed by the trial Court. Execution proceedings were initiated in which the functionaries of the respondents had been making appearance. They have been asking for time to comply with the decree. After lapse of time the appeal was filed. If the subordinate functionaries had failed to perform their duties or were negligent, the matter was between the authority and its employees and possibly the right accrued to the petitioner could not have been taken away. Be that as it may, the plea of condonation of delay was seriously contested, the learned District Judge could not condone it, without framing issue or recording evidence. Unless the facts asserted in the application were proved, delay could not possibly be condoned. Learned District Judge, therefore, fell in error for' condoning long delay in filing of appeal without proper inquiry and evidence.
7. For the reasons above, this revision is allowed; the, impugned judgment of the appellate Court is set aside with the result that the appeal of respondent shall be deemed to be pending before the District Judge who will make inquiry and record evidence after framing issue on the question of sufficiency or otherwise of ground for condonation of delay and then decide the appeal in accordance with law. After recording evidence, the learned District Judge will determine, as to whether, the delay could be condoned. H.B.T./Z‑10/L Petition allowed