1980CLC 628 (PLP)
Before Aftab Hussain, J Versus UM RA-Respondent
| Citation | 1980CLC 628 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Aftab Hussain, J |
| Parties | Before Aftab Hussain, J Versus UM RA-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980CLC 628 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980CLC 628 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Aftab Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980CLC 628 (PLP) (Before Aftab Hussain, J Versus UM RA-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Talib Harder Rizvi for Appellant.
- Ana Ulah Qureshi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing :12th June, 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5-Condonation of delay-No explanation by appellant for not obtaining copies of trial Court's judgment in time-No explanation , why appeals filed 13 days late after obtaining these copies-Appellant having not explained each day's delay, appeal dismissed as barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 901 to 912 o1 1976 since all these appeals are liable to be dismissed as barred by time and the facts in the appeals and the applications for condonation of delay are also the same.
2. In all these cases the respondents' suits for declaration of their ownership rights in different properties which were once in the Ala Milkiyat of the appellants, on the basis of rights of Adna Malkiyat etc. were decreed by the Civil Judge and the appellants' appeal. against those decrees were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali. The consoli dated judgment of the learned Additional District Judge in all these cases was given on the 23rd June, 1976, and the appellate decrees were passed on the same date. On the 29th June, 1976, the appellants applied for certified copies of the judgment and decrees of the learned Additional District Judge and the judgment of the learned trial Court. Copies of the judgment and decrees of the learned Additional District Judge were prepared and delivered to the appellants on the 30th June, 1976, but as regards the copy of the judgment of the trial Court it was reported that it should be obtained from the trial Court For reasons which are not given in the application under section 5 of 'the Limitation Act no step for obtaining these copies was taken till 12th August, 1976. The copies were prepared and delivered to the appellants on the 23rd October, 1976. Thereafter all these appeals were filed on the 5th November, 1976, along with applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. The appellants were entitled to the computation of the period spent in obtaining the copies of the judgment and decrees of the learned Additional District Judge only. Computing that period to the period of limitation of 90 days these appeals should have been filed on the 28th September, 1976, but they were filed as late as the 5th November, 1976. As stated above, there is no explanation why the appellants did not apply for obtaining the copies of the trial Court's judgment immediately after the 30th June, 1976, when they had been informed that they could obtain those copies from the' trial Court. There is also no explanation why the appeals were filed 13 days late after these copies had been obtained. It was the duty of the appellants to explain each day's delay. There is no ground for condo national of the delay. The appeals are dismissed as barred by time with costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.