2007 PLP 1599 (YLR)
MUZAFFAR KHAN and 5 others — Petitioners Versus S. ABDUL KHALIQ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1599 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Hamid Farooq Durrani, J |
| Parties | MUZAFFAR KHAN and 5 others — Petitioners Versus S. ABDUL KHALIQ and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1599 (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 2007 PLP 1599 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Hamid Farooq Durrani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1599 (YLR) (MUZAFFAR KHAN and 5 others — Petitioners Versus S. ABDUL KHALIQ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 115---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Revision---Limitation---Computation of period---Principles---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction, having concurrently been decreed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court, petitioners had filed revision petition against said concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below with a delay of 45/46 days---Counsel for petitioners had contended that time consumed in obtaining certified copies of the record pertaining to the file of Trial Court, could also be considered as same would be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing revision---Validity---Contention was repelled, as in the ordinary course, the copies of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were obtained much before the decision of the appeal---Besides, in the circumstances of the case, it was the date of judgment and decree of the Appellate Court which operated as a starting point for period of limitation for filing revision petition before High Court---Said period, in circumstances, was to be computed keeping in view the dates of application, preparation and issuance of certified copies by the Appellate Court---In the present case, even if the time was calculated from the date of obtaining copies of Trial Court record, revision petition was still barred by 11 days---As period of limitation had been provided in S.115, C.P.C., the provisions regarding the condonation of delay as provided in law of limitation, would not attract to the matter---Besides the revision of concurrent findings recorded by two courts also demanded prompt action on part of the party preferring the petition for the purpose.
- M. Sultan Khan Jadoon for Petitioners.
- Masud-ur-Rehman Awan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 2006.
- 2. In the revision petition in hand pre-admission notice was ordered to be given to the respondents on 14-2-2005. Learned counsel appearing for respondents on 15-5-2006 raised a preliminary objection regarding the petition in hand being barred by time. On the said date the learned counsel for the petitioners requested for time to prepare the brief in order to counter the said preliminary objection. Similarly, request for time was made at further two occasions. The matter was finally argued today, on behalf of both the parties, in respect of the preliminary objection.
Judgment & Decree
HAMID FAROOQ DURRANI, J.
The revision petition in hand was filed questioning the judgments and decrees passed by learned Civil - Judge-IV Abbottabad on 14-10-2000 and Additional District Judge, Abbottabad on 22-7-2003, respectively. The learned trial Court partially decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding the property mentioned in the heading of the plaint. While deciding two appeals arising out of the said judgment and decree, as filed by both the parties, the learned appellate Court also dismissed the appeal of petitioners through a single judgment.
2. In the revision petition in hand pre-admission notice was ordered to be given to the respondents on 14-2-2005. Learned counsel appearing for respondents on 15-5-2006 raised a preliminary objection regarding the petition in hand being barred by time. On the said date the learned counsel for the petitioners requested for time to prepare the brief in order to counter the said preliminary objection. Similarly, request for time was made at further two occasions. The matter was finally argued today, on behalf of both the parties, in respect of the preliminary objection.
3. The perusal of record reveals that the impugned judgment by the learned Appellate Court was passed on 22-7-2003. The certified copies of the judgment and .decree sheet, as attached with the petition, were applied for on 26-7-2003. The said copies were made available to the petitioners on 19-8-2003 whereas the petition in hand was filed on 3-1-2004. It could thus be seen that the petition was filed with an apparent delay of 45/46 days.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the time consumed in obtaining the certified copies of the record pertaining to the file of learned trial Court may also be considered and the same shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the petition in hand. This submission of learned counsel would have no force as in the ordinary course the copies of the judgment and decree by the trial Court are obtained much before the decision of the appeal. Besides, in the circumstances of the case, it is the date of judgment and decree of the appellate Court which operates as a starter for period of limitation for filing of revision petition before this Court. The said period, therefore, is to be computed keeping in view the dates of application, preparation and issuance of the certified copies by the appellate Court. In the present case even if the time is calculated, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, from the date of obtaining copies of trial Court record, the revision petition in hand becomes barred by 11 days.
5. The period of limitation has been provided in-built by section 115, C.P.C., therefore, the provisions regarding the condonation of delay, as provided in law of limitation, would not attract to the matter. Besides, the revision of concurrent findings recorded by two Courts also demands prompt action on the part of the party preferring the petition for the purpose. The ???????????