1969 PLP 246 (SCMR)
KHATOON BEGUM AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus HOSHANG N. E. DINSHAW (DECEASED) AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 246 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHATOON BEGUM AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus HOSHANG N. E. DINSHAW (DECEASED) AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 246 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 246 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 246 (SCMR) (KHATOON BEGUM AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus HOSHANG N. E. DINSHAW (DECEASED) AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- --S. 6‑Provisions apply to suit or application and have no application to an appeal. Ihsanul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Noor Muhammad, Advocate with him) instructed by Ameer Ahmad Khan, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 7th January 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 13th August 1968, is Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 279 and 280 of 1966). Limitation Act (IX of 1908) ORDER ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. K‑152 and K‑153 of 1968. The predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners Mr. Usman Azad filed two suits for specific performance of contracts. On his death on the 11th of September, 1964, the petitioners were brought on the record as his legal representatives. For the failure to comply with certain directions of the Court one of the suits out of which Petition No. 152 of 1968 arises was dismissed on the 22nd of November 1965 and the other suit out of which Petition No. 153 of 1968 arises was dismissed on 6‑12‑1965. In administration Suit No. 97 of 1965 the official assignee was appointed as receiver of the properties and claims of deceased Usman Azad. In December 1966, the official assignee filed two Letters Patent Appeals against the orders of dismissal of the two suits. The appeals have been dismissed on the ground inter alia that they were hopelessly barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that as the orders of the dismissal were illegal inasmuch as for the directions given by the Court suits could not be dismissed and as two of the petitioners are still minors the appeals could not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The learned counsel has failed to show us that the contention is supported by any authority. He has relied upon section 6 of the Limitation Act which applies to a suit or an application and has no application to an appeal. In our view this section cannot be availed of by a minor in connection with an appeal. The petitions, therefore, are dismissed. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. K‑152 and K‑153 of 1968. The predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners Mr. Usman Azad filed two suits for specific performance of contracts. On his death on the 11th of September, 1964, the petitioners were brought on the record as his legal representatives. For the failure to comply with certain directions of the Court one of the suits out of which Petition No. 152 of 1968 arises was dismissed on the 22nd of November 1965 and the other suit out of which Petition No. 153 of 1968 arises was dismissed on 6‑12‑1965. In administration Suit No. 97 of 1965 the official assignee was appointed as receiver of the properties and claims of deceased Usman Azad. In December 1966, the official assignee filed two Letters Patent Appeals against the orders of dismissal of the two suits. The appeals have been dismissed on the ground inter alia that they were hopelessly barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that as the orders of the dismissal were illegal inasmuch as for the directions given by the Court suits could not be dismissed and as two of the petitioners are still minors the appeals could not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The learned counsel has failed to show us that the contention is supported by any authority. He has relied upon section 6 of the Limitation Act which applies to a suit or an application and has no application to an appeal. In our view this section cannot be availed of by a minor in connection with an appeal. The petitions, therefore, are dismissed. Leave refused.