2000 PLP 1551(1) (CLC)
Before Jawwad S. Khawaja, J Versus Mst. ROBINA KAUSAR‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1551(1) (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | Before Jawwad S. Khawaja, J Versus Mst. ROBINA KAUSAR‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1551(1) (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 2000 PLP 1551(1) (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1551(1) (CLC) (Before Jawwad S. Khawaja, J Versus Mst. ROBINA KAUSAR‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Arshad Latif for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Zakriya Sheikh for Respondent .
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑‑Delay in filing revision‑‑ Condonation of‑‑‑Revision petition was time‑barred and petitioner had filed application under S.5, Limitation Act,, 1908 for condonation of delay‑‑ Provisions of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 being not applicable to revision petition, delay in filing revision petition could not be condoned under S.5, Limitation Act, 1908.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Revision No.609‑D of 1999, decided on 7th March, 2000. ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑‑Delay in filing revision‑‑ Condonation of‑‑‑Revision petition was time‑barred and petitioner had filed application under S.5, Limitation Act,, 1908 for condonation of delay‑‑ Provisions of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 being not applicable to revision petition, delay in filing revision petition could not be condoned under S.5, Limitation Act, 1908. Mian Arshad Latif for Petitioner. Muhammad Zakriya Sheikh for Respondent . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has pointed out that the present revision petition is time‑barred. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner's learned counsel. He, however, states that an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to revision petitioner and, as a consequence, the delay in filing of A the revision petition, cannot be condoned. This contention has merit. The present revision petition being time‑barred is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑148/L Revision dismissed