2020 PLP 12 (CLCN)
KABIR MUHAMMAD (DECEASED) through LRs. — Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH (DECEASED) through LRs and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 12 (CLCN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KABIR MUHAMMAD (DECEASED) through LRs. — Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH (DECEASED) through LRs and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (b) Limitation |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 12 (CLCN)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (b) Limitation as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 12 (CLCN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 12 (CLCN) (KABIR MUHAMMAD (DECEASED) through LRs. — Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH (DECEASED) through LRs and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Siddique and Abdul Sammad Ali for Petitioners.
- Malik Zafar Mahboob Langrial for Respondents.
- Ahmad Nadeem Gehla, Assistant Advocate-General.
- 3. Admittedly, the petitioners predecessor Kabir Muhammad remained in litigation with the respondents and continuously associated the proceedings before the revenue hierarchy and the Fard Badr was declared null and void on 28.09.1983 and the same fact was in the knowledge of the Kabir Muhammad from the day one, but he kept mum and instituted the suit in the year 1995, after about 12 years of passing of the said order, which otherwise had to be challenged within one year. If for the sake of arguments it is admitted that the order was illegal and void, even then the same would have been called into question within time prescribed under law; reliance is placed on Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi (2015 PTD 107 Supreme Court of Pakistan and (2014 SCMR 1594) and Gen. (R.) Pervez Musharraf v. Nadeem Ahmad (Advocate) and another (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 585).
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
Barred by limitation
Scope
Petitioner assailed dismissal of their suit by the courts below
Petitioners' predecessor had remained in litigation with respondents and had been continuously associated in the proceedings before the revenue hierarchy
Fard badar was declared to be null and void on 28.9.1983 and it was in the knowledge of petitioner's predecessor from day one, but he instituted the suit in the year 1995, after about 12 years of passing of the said order, which otherwise had to be challenged in one year
Suit being barred by limitation, High Court declined to discuss further merits of the case
Revision petition was dismissed.
When the suit is barred by limitation, no further merits of the case need be discussed.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.
Precisely, petitioners predecessor-in-interest namely Kabir Muhammad instituted a suit for declaration with regards to the suit land wherein he challenged certain mutations as well as order of Deputy Commissioner, Muzafargarh dated 8.9.1983. The respondents/defendants while appearing before the learned trial Court contested the suit and prayed for dismissal of the same. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence of the parties was invited, which was adduced in pro and contra. The-learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.09.2009 dismissed suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs, which decree was agitated by preferring an appeal, but the same was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 26.07.2011, which has given rise to the instant civil revision.
2. Heard.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners predecessor Kabir Muhammad remained in litigation with the respondents and continuously associated the proceedings before the revenue hierarchy and the Fard Badr was declared null and void on 28.09.1983 and the same fact was in the knowledge of the Kabir Muhammad from the day one, but he kept mum and instituted the suit in the year 1995, after about 12 years of passing of the said order, which otherwise had to be challenged within one year. If for the sake of arguments it is admitted that the order was illegal and void, even then the same would have been called into question within time prescribed under law; reliance is placed on Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi (2015 PTD 107 Supreme Court of Pakistan and (2014 SCMR 1594) and Gen. (R.) Pervez Musharraf v. Nadeem Ahmad (Advocate) and another (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 585).
4. Pursuant to the above, when it is found that the suit was barred limitation, there is no need to discuss further merits of the case and it is observed that while deciding issue of limitation, the learned Court below have construed law on the subject in a judicious and apt manner and have not committed any illegality and irregularity, rather vested jurisdiction has been exercised legally.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision in hand being devoid of any force and substance stands dismissed. No order as to the costs. SA/K-17/L Petition dismissed.