2000 PLP 281 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus WAHEED AHMAD and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 281 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus WAHEED AHMAD and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 281 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), (c) Limitation as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 281 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 281 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus WAHEED AHMAD and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 85, 86 and 129
Registered sale-deed
Where sale deed was a registered document, presumption of truth was attached to the endorsement thereupon.
S. 115
Concurrent findings of facts
Suit as well as appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court respectively
Concurrent findings of both the Courts below were based on evidence
Such conclusions were immune from scrutiny in a revision application under S.115, C. P. C., unless the same were perverse or arbitrary in nature.
Once limitation starts running no subsequent event could stop the same.
S.5
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115
Condonation of delay-- Revision filed was delayed by 42 days
Plea taken by the petitioners for such delay was that the certified copies of the record of Trial Court were applied for and received after the receipt of certified copies of judgment-- Validity
Such a ground taken in the application for condonation of delay could not provide a valid excuse in filing revision petition
Revision having been filed after the prescribed period of 90 days, delay was not condoned in circumstances.