2008 PLP 1466 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 7 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD WARIS and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1466 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 7 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD WARIS and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1466 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1466 (CLC)?
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: 2008 PLP 1466 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 7 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD WARIS and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C.M. Sarwar for Petitioners.
- Syed Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12
Suit-for specific performance of agreement
Suit for specific performance of agreement filed by the plaintiffs, was decreed by the Trial Court and appeal filed by defendants against the same having been dismissed by the Appellate Court defendants had filed revision against said concurrent judgment and decree of the courts below
Revision against impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court below filed after one year of said judgment and decree, was patently time barred and counsel for defendants had failed to explain said inordinate delay in filing revision within 90 days
Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, being not applicable in revision, delay could not be condoned
Counsel for defendants being unable to point out any illegality, irregularity, misreading and non-reading of record warranting interference of High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings of fact could not be interfered with by the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL AHMAD, J.
Respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed suit for specific performance on 3-7-1988 of an agreement dated 8-9-1987 regarding land measuring 3 Kanals, 15 Marlas out of total area of 11 Kanals, 15 Marlas bearing Khata No.127/213, 215, Khasra Nos.162, 309, 310, 450 situated at village Hameedpur, Tehsil Pasrur District Sialkot. The suit was contested by the petitioners.
2. The learned trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties decreed the suit of the respondents vide judgment and decree dated 15-3-2003. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 28-5-2004. Hence this revision.
3. Agreement heard. Record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that judgments and decree of both the Courts below are against law and facts and result of misreading and non-reading of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and that there was no agreement with respondents Nos.1 and 3.
5. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed on 28-5-2004 and the revision was filed before this Court on 28-5-2005 which is patently time barred and learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain this .inordinate delay in filing the revision within 90 days. Reliance in this regard is placed on NLR 2002 CLJ 704, 1975 SCMR
304. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that section-5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in Civil Revisions and reference in this regard may be made to 2006 SCMR 676, 2001 SCMR 286, 2002 MLD 1531. More over concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any illegality, irregularity misreading and non-reading of record warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
7. This Civil Revision is dismissed being time barred as well as on merit. H.B.T./M-182/L Petition dismissed.