2009 PLP 1729 (YLR)
MAJEED AHMED KHAN — Petitioner Versus ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1729 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Asghar Haider, J |
| Parties | MAJEED AHMED KHAN — Petitioner Versus ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1729 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1729 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Asghar Haider, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1729 (YLR) (MAJEED AHMED KHAN — Petitioner Versus ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Manzoor-ul-Haque Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.12 & 54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, R.10, & O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2, 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Suit for specific performance of agreement and permanent injunction
Striking off defence for failure to file written statement
Interim injunction, grant and vacation of
Plaintiff filed suit for possession through specific performance with prayer for permanent injunction--Interim injunction was granted to the plaintiff by the Trial Court and application filed by the defendant for vacation of injunctive relief was dismissed
Defendant having failed to file written statement, his defence was struck off by the Trial Court and appeal filed by the defendant against judgment of the Trial Court, having been dismissed by the Appellate Court he had filed constitutional petition
Defendant was granted at least 14 opportunities to file written statement, but he having failed to do so within stipulated period of 30 days, order passed by the Trial Court was unexceptionable
Aggrieved of order of the Trial Court defendant filed appeal after almost lapse of one year
Appellate Court found that appeal was not competent and converted the proceedings into a revision petition, but that was also barred by limitation as same was required to be filed within 90 days of the impugned order
Provisions of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 seeking condonation of delay was not applicable to revision petitions--Impugned order being unexceptionable, petition having no merits, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--The respondent No.3/plaintiff filed a suit for possession through specific performance with the prayer for permanent injunction against respondents Nos.4 to 19, interim injunction was granted by the learned trial Court. The petitioner filed an application for vacation of injunctive relief, it was dismissed. The petitioner was also directed to file written statement, the needful was not done, therefore, his defence was struck off. The petitioner' filed an appeal which also was dismissed, hence the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order suffers from patent illegalities, the same is not reflective of the correct position on record, the petitioner had a vested right to file written statement and forfeiting the right is illegal, as the petitioner was not granted adequate opportunity in this context.
3. Heard.
4. I have appraised the record of the proceedings with the assistance of the learned counsel. It is clear that the trial Court dismissed the suit to the extent of defendants Nos.2 to 17 on 26-10-2007, and struck off the right of the petitioner to file the written statement, after recording that at least 14 opportunities to the petitioner to file the written statement. It also is clear from the tenor of the order that the written statement was not filed within the stipulated period of 30 days. Thus the order of the trial Court is unexceptionable. Now adverting to the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it is clear that aggrieved of this order, an appeal was filed on 8-9-2008 after almost lapse of one year. The lower appellate Court held that appeal was not competent and converted the proceedings into a revision petition. But also ruled that it is barred by limitation as the same was required to be filed within 90 days of the order impugned. A bare perusal of record reflects that the revision petition was filed much later thus it is clearly barred by limitation. The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay are not applicable to revision petitions. Reference City District Government, Lahore through District Coordination Officer, Lahore v. Mian Muhammad Saeed Amin (2006 SCMR 676). Therefore, the impugned order is unexceptionable, resultantly, this petition has no merits and is therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./M-279/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.