1983 PLP 1239 (SCMR)
ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus FAZAL HUSSAIN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1239 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus FAZAL HUSSAIN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1239 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1239 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1239 (SCMR) (ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus FAZAL HUSSAIN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst. Mumtaz P L D 1982 S C 88 ref. Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim for Petitioners (in C. P. No. 37 of 1980).
- Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C. P.No. 798 of 1980).
- Nemo for Respondents (in both the Petitions):
- Date of hearing : 7th May, 1983.
- Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C. P.No. 798 of 1980).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments dated 28-10-1979 in S. A. O. 286 of 1971 and dated 1-4-1980 in S. A. O. 711/79 of the Lahore High Court).
Ss. 5, 29(2), 4, 9 to 18, 22 & Art. 156-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 15(4)-Time allowed for appeal under S. 15(4), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordi nance (VI of 1959) being 30 days but 90 days under Art. 156, Limita tion Act-Held, time allowed for filing appeal by special law being different from that given in Limitation Act, 1908, S. 5 stands excluded by virtue of S. 29(2) which permits application of only Ss. 4, 9 to 18 & 22, Limitation Act, 1908.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This order will dispose of the above two petitions, as the question of law falling for determination in both the matters in the same. In both the cases the petitioners are tenants of premises and the respondents are their landlords. In pursuance of eviction applications filed by the landlords under the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 the petitioners in both the cases were found liable to ejectment. The appeals preferred before the appellate authority by them having failed they filed second appeals before the High Court under section‑ 15(4) of the Ordinance. The time prescribed, within which an appeal cap be preferred under subsection (4) of section 15 of the Ordinance, is 30 days. However, the appeals in both the cases were preferred beyond the aforesaid period of 30 days and condonation of delay was sought by invoking the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay, however, was not condoned, as the High Court found, in both the cases, that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act were not applicable to appeals filed under subsection (4) of section 15 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Both the appeals were accordingly, dismissed as barred by time. These two petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the aforesaid orders passed by the High Court. We do not find any force in these petitions. The time allowed for an appeal under subsection (4) of section 15 to the High Court, under the Ordinance, is 30 days, whereas under Article 156 of the Limitation Act it is 90 days. The time allowed for filing the appeal by the special law i.e., West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 being different from that given in the Limitation Act, Section 5 stands excluded by virtue of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which permits the application of only, sections 4, 9 to 18 and 22 in such situations. The same view has also been taken by us in Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst. Mumtaz (PLD1982 SC 88). The High Court, therefore, rightly dismissed the applications for condonation of delay invoking the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act. The upshot is that no ground for interference in the orders passed by the High Court has been made out. Hence both these petitions must fail and are hereby dismissed. The interim order of stay, dated 21‑6‑1980 passed in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 798 of 1980, accordingly, also stands vacated. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.