1990 PLP 332 (SCMR)
Sh. MUHAMMAD NAZIR‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 332 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD NAZIR‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 332 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 332 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 332 (SCMR) (Sh. MUHAMMAD NAZIR‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 30th April 1985 in Civil Revision No. 739‑D of 1984). ‑‑‑Execution of sale‑deed‑‑‑Determination of date for performance of contract for the purpose of making the limitation period of three years start running from it‑‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine the question of limitation in the light of correspondence which took place between the petitioner and respondents.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 30th April, 1985 whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the dispute between the parties arises from a suit for specific performance of contract. The parties had agreed that the sale -deed will be executed after the respondents had obtained P.T.D. They got the P.T.D. on 20th January, 1965 but the suit was brought by the petitioner on 15th November, 1977. The respondents therefore raised the plea of limitation against it. The Courts below had concurrently held that by virtue, of letter dated 12th August, 1969 the respondents had shown their willingness, to perform their part of the contract in having told the petitioner to get the sale‑deed registered from them on 24th August. 1969 on payment of the remaining dues. Thus this letter according to the finding of all the Courts fixed a date for performance of the contract so as to make the limitation of three years start running from it. The petitioner did not make himself available on 24th August, 1969 for getting the sale‑deed registered. However they brought the present suit on 15 November, 1977 which was held to be time‑barred not only by the Courts below but also the civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court on this very ground. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner before us took us through the correspondence that had taken place between the parties in order to show that 24th August, 1969 could not be considered as a date for performance of the contract. It was submitted that in the light of the said correspondence between the parties the petitioner could have not been non‑suited on the ground of limitation. After hearing learned counsel we grant leave in this case to examine the question of limitation in the light‑ of the correspondence which took place between the petitioner and the respondents. Security to be deposited in the sum of Rs.5,
000. The appeal to be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file additional documents, if any, on which they want to place reliance. M.A.K./M‑1040/S Leave granted.