1995SCMR744 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN through Legal Heirs ... Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Member, Board of Revenue (Residual Properties), Lahore and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR744 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Muhammad Afzal Lone, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN through Legal Heirs ... Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Member, Board of Revenue (Residual Properties), Lahore and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR744 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR744 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Muhammad Afzal Lone, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR744 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN through Legal Heirs ... Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Member, Board of Revenue (Residual Properties), Lahore and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on -Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th June, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(For review of judgment in CA. Nos. 304/89, 305/89, 306/89 and 307/89, dated 10‑12‑1992). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules 1980, OXXVI, R.1‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Ground for review was that once the Court came to conclusion as it did in its decision that the law invoked by plaintiff was unexceptionable for claiming relief in the suit, same should not have been denied to them‑‑‑Court in its judgment under review had found that plaintiff on his own showing had never remained in possession during the period 1946 to 1977 and having remained completely ignorant of his ownership rights and property having remained in possession of others who claimed it in their own right, could not claim on such pleading any cause of action since 1977 and base his suit on it as within period of limitation for claiming such relief having expired in 1963‑‑‑No principle known to law exists whereunder on expiry of full available period of limitation revival of cause of action afresh and running of the limitation period over again could take place either from the date of knowledge or the attornment of tenants or on obtaining of possession‑‑‑Conclusion so reached by Court was not shown to be open to question on the legal plane‑‑‑No case for review was made out in circumstances. Kasem Molla v. Fajel Shek and others PLD 1952 Dacca 347 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Four separate review petitions have been moved against our judgment dated 10‑12‑1992,
2. The main ground taken up for seeking review of the judgment is that once the Court came to the conclusion as it did in paragraph 19 of the judgment that the law invoked by the petitioners was unexceptionable for claiming relief in the suit, the same should not have been denied to them.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we find that in applying the accepted principle of law to the facts of the case as discussed in the same paragraph 19, we had found as hereunder:‑‑ "On his own showing having never remained in possession during period 1946 to December, 1977, having remained completely ignorant of his ownership during this period, the property having remained in possession of others who claimed it in their own right, could the plaintiff on such pleading claim a case of action since December, 1977 and base a suit on it as within limitation. None of the cases cited shows such an absonce of possession over such a long period. Taking the maximum from the plaint (7 years of age in 1946) and out of the law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents Kasam Molla v. Fajel Shek and others (PLD 1952 Dacca 347) the period of limitation for any suit in respect of this property expired in 1963. There is no principle known to law whereunder on expiry of full available period of limitation revival of cause of action afresh and running of the limitation period over again could take place either from the date of knowledge or the attornment of the tenants or on obtaining of possession."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the conclusion so reached is open to question on the legal plane.
5. No case for review, is made out. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. A.A./M-2034/S Revision dismissed.