1990 PLP 1031 (SCMR)
MAJEEDUDDIN KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1031 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MAJEEDUDDIN KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1031 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1031 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1031 (SCMR) (MAJEEDUDDIN KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners.
- Jehangir A. Jhoja, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
Judgment & Decree
Jehangir A. Jhoja, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to
5. Date of hearing: 29th October, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant side in a suit for declaration; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. They have lost throughout. The plaintiffs' plea was that the so‑called alienation by their predecessor -in‑interest one Gama Khan deceased which was the basis of the petitioners' right to the suit land (through intermediary predecessor‑in‑interest) was fraudulent as the said Gama Khan had never alienated it and that fraud had been committed in this case. After denial of the main allegations from the petitioners side, the suit was decreed. The petitioners' appeal and revision having been dismissed they have now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel rightly contended that the findings of fact by all the three Courts being against the petitioners, he is unable now to challenge them. He has accordingly, relying on some of the averments made in the plaint, tried to show that the suit was time‑barred. According to him, as stated in paragraph 11 of the plaint, the cause of action having arisen in 1965 the suit filed in 1976 was barred by time. And the plea, that the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the fraud having been committed, hence time shall run from knowledge, according to him, will be of no avail to the respondents side; because, it is not so asserted in said paragraph
11. If paragraph 11 is read in isolation as desired by the learned counsel the result would be the same as sought by him; but, paragraph 10 which has to be read with paragraph 11 makes out a good case and explanation by the respondents side; namely, that they having been kept in dark on account of the fraud which, it has been established, was committed they could not have filed the suit within the period of limitation. Accordingly, in the circumstances of this case the time would start running from the date of knowledge and that being so the suit was not time‑barred. After hearing the learned counsel we do not find any force in this petition, leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. A.A./M‑1176/S Leave refused.