1986 PLP 602 (SCMR)
Mst. BAKHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 602 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Limitation‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Leave granted to examine contention that point of limitation was not decided according to law in a suit for pre‑emption where plaint was returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction‑, re‑presented during absence of Presiding Officer and objection raised in written statement that suit was time‑barred.‑‑Limitation‑‑Pre‑emption. |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. BAKHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 602 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 602 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Limitation‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Leave granted to examine contention that point of limitation was not decided according to law in a suit for pre‑emption where plaint was returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction‑, re‑presented during absence of Presiding Officer and objection raised in written statement that suit was time‑barred.‑‑Limitation‑‑Pre‑emption. bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 602 (SCMR) (Mst. BAKHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Laqa Haider Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th November, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 22‑1‑1985 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.19 of 1985). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Limitation‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Leave granted to examine contention that point of limitation was not decided according to law in a suit for pre‑emption where plaint was returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction‑, re‑presented during absence of Presiding Officer and objection raised in written statement that suit was time‑barred.‑‑[Limitation‑‑Pre‑emption].
Judgment & Decree
S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioners purchased land on 15‑8‑1967 from the third respondent. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 thereupon, filed a suit for pre‑emption in the Court of Civil Judge, Chiniot on 2‑9‑1968. Admittedly on the date of institution the court‑fee of Rs.743.40 only was paid. However, by an ex parte amendment the valuation of the suit was changed and fixed at Rs.20,000 and on such valuation the suit fell beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, and the plaint was, therefore, returned to the plaintiff under Order VII, rule 10, C . P. C . The plaint was then represented on 7‑9‑1968 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jhang during the absence of the Presiding Officer and was received by the Reader of the Court. It was put up before the Court on 9‑9‑1968. 2. In the background of the above facts, the petitioners raised objection in their written statement that the suit was time‑barred and an issue was framed in this behalf. The issue was decided against the petitioners and so was the appeal by the learned Additional District Judge. Finally, the same point was raised in a Second Appeal before the High Court which was dismissed as per impugned judgment. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the point of limitation was not decided according to law needs examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,500. The stay already granted in the suit shall continue meanwhile. M. I. Leave granted.