2006 PLP 3229 (YLR)
CHAN PEER SHAH — Petitioner Versus SHAFI ULLAH and others-Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 3229 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | CHAN PEER SHAH — Petitioner Versus SHAFI ULLAH and others-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 3229 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 3229 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 3229 (YLR) (CHAN PEER SHAH — Petitioner Versus SHAFI ULLAH and others-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Naveed Shahryar for Petitioner.
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan and Sarfraz Khan Gondal for Respondents Nos.1 to 30.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.31 to 36.
Headnotes / Summary
S.12(2)
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.181
Application under S.12(2), C. P. C.
Suit for declaration dismissed
Appeal withdrawn through counsel
Plaintiff, after a period of seven years, moved application under S.12(2), C.P.C. challenging the withdrawal of appeal on account of fraud
One of plaintiffs admitted that knowledge of withdrawal in question had been gained 5 years prior to filing of the application
Time for making application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was governed by Art.18I of Limitation Act, 1908, whereby the maximum period of limitation for such an application was three years
Plaintiff filing application under S.12(2) C.P.C. after 3 years from the date of knowledge held was time barred.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Azam Shah and Sardar Bibi, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner, filed a suit for declaration, claiming that Jannat Bibi widow of Rang Shah, was only a limited owner of the estate left by the deceased Rang Shah under the custom and they as a collaterals are entitled to the balance of the share after giving the inheritance to the widow and Hayat Bibi, the daughter; this suit was dismissed; an appeal was filed, which was withdrawn through the counsel, who had filed the appeal, on 3-12-1989, thereafter, an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. was moved on 28-5-1997, challenging the withdrawal of the appeal on account of fraud and stating therein that Karam Shah was not the attorney of Azam Shah, because Azam Shah had died on 25-11-1989 i.e. before the appeal could be withdrawn by the attorney.
2. The respondents resisted the application, inter alia, on the ground of limitation. The applicants examined Ishtiaq Hussain Shah as A.W.1, who in his statement has categorically admitted that they came to know about the withdrawal of the appeal within 1-1/2 or 2 years, which means that the applicants of the application under section 12(2), C.P.C., attained the knowledge of withdrawal of the appeal somewhere in the year 1992, whereas the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. was filed after a period of more than seven years, from the date of the withdrawal. The maximum period of limitation for such an application by applying the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act, is three years. Undoubtedly, the application was barred by time, moreover Gulab Shah, the father of Ishtiaq Shah, the applicant of the application under section 12(2), C.P.C., had never challenged the withdrawal of the appeal, during his life time.
3. In the light of above, I do not find if there is any error in the judgment of the learned Court below on the issue of limitation, therefore, such finding cannot be interfered in the revisional, jurisdiction as neither any misreading or non-reading of the evidence has been pointed out by the petitioner's counsel nor any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity has been established. Dismissed. F.B./C-41/L Petition dismissed.