2006 SCMR 1132 (PLP)
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus TAJ DIN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 SCMR 1132 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Actg. C.J., Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ |
| Parties | KHALIL-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus TAJ DIN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 SCMR 1132 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 SCMR 1132 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Actg. C.J., Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 SCMR 1132 (PLP) (KHALIL-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus TAJ DIN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 8 & 39---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.91 & 120---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Suit for possession without seeking relief of cancellation of registered sale-deed---Limitation---Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below---Contention of petitioner was that in such suit provisions of Art.91 of Limitation Act, 1908 would not be competent and same would be governed under Art.120 of Limitation Act, 1908---Plea raised by respondent was that in such suit Art.91 of Limitation Act, 1908 would govern the proceedings and Appellate Court had rightly rejected the plaint which judgment was upheld by High Court---Validity---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below---Leave to appeal was refused. Mst. Hamida Begum v. Murad Begum and others PLD 1975 SC 624; Laloo and another v. Ghulaman 2000 SCMR 1058 and Shamshad Ali Shah and another v. Syed Hassan Shah and others PLD 1964 SC 143 ref. Ch. Ali Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Mian Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 1-11-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.3697 of 1994).
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY', ACTG. C.J.
This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 1st November, 1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.3696 of 1994. (2). Precisely stating facts of the case are that on 11th March, 1989 petitioner filed a suit for possession through partition with consequential relief that the sale-deed registered on 17th March, 1970 was void, fake, forged and ineffective on the rights of the petitioner .to his extent. Learned trial Court rejected the plaint by invoking the provisions of Order VII, rule 11 of the C.P.C. on the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata vide order dated 31st January, 1990. Petitioner filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Lahore who found that the suit was not barred by res judicata at all but rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by time. As such being aggrieved from the order of Civil Judge as well as District Judge, petitioner preferred Civil Revision No.3697 of 1994 before learned High Court but without any success as the same had been dismissed, hence instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed. (3). Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner has not prayed for cancellation of sale-deed dated 11th March, 1989, as he had filed a suit for possession and if, as a consequence of granting relief to him the document/registered sale-deed on which the respondent has relied, is declared void, fake, forged and ineffective and that the suit was also barred by limitation, in view of the judgment passed in the case of Mst. Hamida Begum v. Murad Begum and others PLD 1975 SC 624 as well as Laloo and another v. Ghulaman 2000 SCMR 1058, the suit under Article 91 of the Limitation Act would not be competent and would be A governed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. (4). On the other 'hand, learned counsel for caveat relied upon, the judgment in the case of Shamshad Ali Shah and another v. Syed Hassan Shah and others PLD 1964 SC 143 and contended that in such-like situation Article 91 of the Limitation Act will govern the proceedings, therefore, petitioner has rightly been non-suited by the District Judge on the question of limitation. (5). After hearing both the sides and having gone through the judgments relied upon by them, leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to examine their respective contentions. M.H./K-31/SC Leave granted.