1987 PLP 1833 (SCMR)
UNITED BANK LTD.‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji Malik MUHAMMAD UMER‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1833 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | UNITED BANK LTD.‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji Malik MUHAMMAD UMER‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1833 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1833 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1833 (SCMR) (UNITED BANK LTD.‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji Malik MUHAMMAD UMER‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and decree of the Baluchistan High Court dated 16‑3‑1986, passed in F.R.A. No. 16 of 1985). ‑‑‑S. 5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation‑‑Time barred appeal, remand of‑‑High Court condoning delay in a time‑barred appeal and remanding case for retrial‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine contention that High Court having clearly found respondent's appeal to be barred by time, was left with no jurisdiction to remand the case and appeal ought to have been dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The respondent had filed two suits against the petitioner Bank on different causes of action and for different amounts. Suit No.39 of 1982 was filed for recovery of Rs.36,000 and the Suit No. 40 of 1982 was filed for the recovery of Rs.4,000. Suit No.39 of 1982 was dismissed on 10‑3‑1985 while the other suit No.40 of 1982 was decreed on 29‑5‑1985. In respect of the judgment and decree arising out of suit No.39 of 1982, an admittedly belated Regular First Appeal No.16 of 1985 was filed by the respondent on or about 11‑12‑1985. The judgment and decree passed in the other suit No.40 of 1982 was also challenged by the petitioner in Regular First Appeal No. 7 of 1985. Both the above appeals were taken up together by the learned High Court on 16‑3‑1985. The petitioners Appeal No.7 of 1985, being prior in point of time, was taken up first and the judgment and decree passed in the suit was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Regular First Appeal No.16 of 1985, brought by the respondent, was also taken up on the same date and although the appeal was held to be time‑barred by the learned High Court, yet the same was accepted and the case was remanded to the trial Court. The finding of the learned High Court in this respect reads as follows:‑ "Regarding limitation in fact no ground had been made for condonation of delay in the application but as the Appeal No. 7 of 1985 which has been allowed and remanded for re‑trial and this case is connected between the same parties in respect of the same account I would therefore, condone the delay and also remand this case for re‑trial." 2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court having clearly found the respondent's appeal to be barred by time, was left with no jurisdiction to remand the case and the appeal ought to have been dismissed. 3. The contentions raised above require examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.1,000. The appeal will be heard on the same record. The proceedings in suit No.39 of 1982 before the trial Court shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal. M.I./U‑7/S Leave granted.