1988 MLD 860 (PLP)
BUNDOO KHAN and 2 others‑‑Applicant Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 MLD 860 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Tanzil‑ur‑Rehman, J |
| Parties | BUNDOO KHAN and 2 others‑‑Applicant Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 MLD 860 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 MLD 860 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Tanzil‑ur‑Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 MLD 860 (PLP) (BUNDOO KHAN and 2 others‑‑Applicant Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 25th October, 1987,
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O. XLI, Rr. 17 & 19‑ Limitation Act (IX of 1A18), Art. 168‑‑Application for re admission of appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution‑‑Appellate Court re‑admitted appeal on application filed after about four month;‑‑Order re‑admitting appeal, held, was without jurisdiction and set aside‑‑Appeal, could not be admitted after expiry of time prescribed under Art. 168 of Limitation Act, which was thirty days and time under the Art would begin to run from date of dismissal of appeal and not from date of knowledge of dismissal. Haji Ghulam Sarwar v. Daya Ram 1975 S C M R 199; Gul Farid and 4 others v. Sultan 1985 M L D 1619 rel. S.H. Fani for Applicant. Respondent (absent).
Judgment & Decree
This is a Revision Application under Section 115, C.P.C. The, relevant, facts giving rise to this Revision Application are that the applicants‑plaintiffs fit. Suit No. 1860 of 1972 in the Civil Court, Karachi for declaration and injunction, which was decreed in favour of the applicants‑plaintiffs by Judgment/Decree dated 31‑5‑1979. The respondents‑defendants filed a Civil Appeal No.224/79 in District Court which came up for hearing in the III Court of Additional District Judge, Karachi, which was dismissed on 17‑11‑1982 for non‑prosecution but, however, the same was re‑admitted for hearing on 14‑12‑1982. The said appeal was adjourned from time to time, for one reason or the other, and lastly it came up for hearing on 25‑7‑1985 and was, again dismissed for non‑prosecution under Order 41, Rule 17, C.P.C. The respondents again made an application for re‑admission of the appeal on 28‑11‑1985 after about four months' time. The said appeal, in spite of objections filed by the applicant, was re‑admitted under Order 41, Rule 19, C.P.C. by the learned III Additional District Judge, Karachi by his order dated 4‑9‑1986, against which this Revision Application has been preferred.
2. The only point as urged by Mr. S.H.Fani is that the application for re admission of the appeal under Order 41, Rule 19 was barred by limitation. The learned counsel refers to Article 168 of the Limitation Act which is reproduced as under: "
168. For the re‑admission Thirty days The date of an appeal dismissed of the for want of prosecution dismissal." Reliance is also placed on cases reported as Haji Ghulam Sarwar v. Daya Ram (1975 S C M R 199) and Gul Farid and 4 others v. Sultan (1985 M L D 1619), which go to support the submission of the learned counsel. Under Article 168 of the Limitation Act the time begins to run from the date of the dismissal of the Appeal and not from the date of the knowledge of the dismissal. The impugned order re‑admitting the appeal is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the appeal could not be re‑admitted after the expiry of time as prescribed under Article 168 of the Limitation Act. The Revision Application, is therefore, accepted and the impugned order dated 1‑9‑1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is set aside, but in the circumstances that the respondents have not turned up today, there will be not order as to costs. M.Y.H/B‑74/K. Petition allowed.