1981 PLP 369 (CLC)
M. SHAFIQUE SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus Kist. IRSHAD BEGUM AND 8 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 369 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | M. SHAFIQUE SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus Kist. IRSHAD BEGUM AND 8 OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 369 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 369 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 369 (CLC) (M. SHAFIQUE SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus Kist. IRSHAD BEGUM AND 8 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mahfoozul Hag Khan for Petitioners.
- D. M. Chaudhry for Respondent No. 1.
- Rafiq Javed Butt for Respondent No. 2.
- Riaz‑141‑Hassan Gillani for Respondents Nos. 3 to 9.
- Date of hearing : 17th of May, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ O. XXI, r. 90‑Sale, setting aside of‑Deposit of 20 per cent of sale price‑Not intention of Legislature‑Such deposit subject to direction of Court‑Specification of amount of deposit‑Obligatory on executing Court‑Such direction not given by executing Court‑Rejection of objection petition for non‑deposit of amount, held, not justified. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ S. 5 & Art. 166‑Limitation‑Objection to sale filed after five months‑‑Limitation for such petition 30 days‑Application for condonation of delay not filed‑Plea of limitation not raised before executing Court‑Such plea involving a pure question of law, held, could be advanced at any stage‑Petition dismissed as time barred in circumstances of case.‑Question of law].
Judgment & Decree
O. XXI, r. 90‑Sale, setting aside of‑Deposit of 20 per cent of sale price‑Not intention of Legislature‑Such deposit subject to direction of Court‑Specification of amount of deposit‑Obligatory on executing Court‑Such direction not given by executing Court‑Rejection of objection petition for non‑deposit of amount, held, not justified. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ S. 5 & Art. 166‑Limitation‑Objection to sale filed after five months‑‑Limitation for such petition 30 days‑Application for condonation of delay not filed‑Plea of limitation not raised before executing Court‑Such plea involving a pure question of law, held, could be advanced at any stage‑Petition dismissed as time barred in circumstances of case.‑Question of law]. Mahfoozul Hag Khan for Petitioners. D. M. Chaudhry for Respondent No.
1. Rafiq Javed Butt for Respondent No.
2. Riaz‑141‑Hassan Gillani for Respondents Nos. 3 to