P L D 2006 Supreme Court 512 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. NAJMA BIBI and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2006 Supreme Court 512 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal, Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. NAJMA BIBI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Supreme Court 512 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Supreme Court 512 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javed Iqbal, Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Supreme Court 512 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. NAJMA BIBI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zaidi, Advocate on Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. No.83-84/2005).
- Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.P. No.1499 of 2005).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.Ps. No.83-84 of 2005).
- Mahmood Khan, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.P.No.1499/2005) on Court Notice.
- JAVED IQBAL, J.---Heard Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners and Mr.Mahmood Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents. In the above captioned petitions a similar question of law is involved. After having scanned the entire record and perused the judgments impugned with care and caution we are inclined to grant leave, inter alia, on the following points:--
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 181
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.48 & 151
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Application for restoration of civil revision dismissed in default-Limitation-:-Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court, inter alia, on the points as to whether the provisions as contained in Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 could be made applicable to case of an application moved for restoration of a civil revision petition which was dismissed in default as no specific period of limitation had been provided in the Schedule or in section 48 of C.P.C.; whether no remedy whatsoever was available against dismissal of a civil revision petition for non-prosecution and in such an eventuality whether Court could invoke its inherent powers as conferred upon it under section 151, C.P.C.; whether omission of the case from the cause list circulated by the registry of the High Court did constitute sufficient cause for restoration of the civil revision petition; and whether the divergence of opinion qua application of Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 in cases Allah Bachai v. Fida Hussain 2004 SCMR 615, Muhammad Sadiq v. Bashiran PLD 2000 SC 820 had not created an anomalous situation justifying an authoritative judgment.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.
Heard Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners and Mr.Mahmood Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents. In the above captioned petitions a similar question of law is involved. After having scanned the entire record and perused the judgments impugned with care and caution we are inclined to grant leave, inter alia, on the following points:-- (i) Whether the provisions as contained in Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 can be made applicable in case of an application moved for restoration of a civil revision petition which was dismissed in default as no specific period of limitation has been provided in the Schedule or in section 48 of C.P.C.? (ii) Whether no remedy whatsoever is available against dismissal of a civil revision petition for non-prosecution and in such an A eventuality can the Court invoke its inherent powers as conferred upon it under section 151, C.P.C.? (iii) Whether omission of the case from the cause list circulated by the registry of the High Court does constitute sufficient cause for restoration of the civil revision petition? (iv) Whether the divergence of opinion qua application of Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 in case Allah Bachai v. Fida Hussain 2004 SCMR 615, Muhammad Sadiq v. Bashiran PLD 2000 SC 820 have not created an anomalous situation justifying an authoritative judgment? The above captioned petitions which are converted into appeal be clubbed together and fixed at some early date in view of the significant and important questions involved therein. M.B.A./M-77/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.