1998 PLP 341 (SCMR)
SHAH MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CENTRAL GOVERNMENT and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 341 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SHAH MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CENTRAL GOVERNMENT and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 341 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 341 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 341 (SCMR) (SHAH MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CENTRAL GOVERNMENT and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th March, 1997.
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 11‑1‑1996 of the Lahore High Court, passed in Civil Revision No.89 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R. 11‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Rejection of plaint by Trial Court‑‑‑Order of Trial Court was maintained up to High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Trial Court had rejected plaint on point of limitation‑‑ High Court while upholding findings of Courts below on question of limitation had further maintained that plaintiffs were required under law to obtain declaration from custodian to the effect that property in question was not evacuee property but having failed to approach Custodian, they could not be granted same relief through back door by invoking jurisdiction of Civil Court‑‑ Jurisdiction of Civil Court, being barred to grant such relief, from fact disclosed in plaint itself, it was barred by time and was rightly rejected‑‑‑Plaintiffs could not controvert factual findings with the result that no legitimate exception could be taken to the view taken by Courts below that suit was barred by time‑‑‑Plaint was, thus, rightly rejected‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court dated 11-1-1996 dismissing the petitioners' revision petition (Civil Revision No-89 of 1996) in limine.
2. Petitioners claiming themselves to be the owners in possession of the land in dispute brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the year 1990 wherein they, inter alia, challenged the auction of the suit land as evacuee property held on 24-9-1974. They asserted that the land in dispute was not an evacuee property. It was illegally treated as such and sold in auction to the defendants. The suit was contested by defendant No.6, the auction-purchaser on the ground that it was barred by limitation. His further plea was that he was in possession of the land in dispute and, therefore, the suit as framed was not maintainable. Yet another objection taken by the said defendant was that the petitioners had never challenged the auction/order of the Settlement Authority in any appropriate proceedings.
3. It appears that the learned Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and similar was the fate of the revision petition filed by them in the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing the revision petition has not only upheld the findings of the Courts below on the question of limitation but further observed that the petitioners were required under the law to obtain a declaration from the Custodian to the effect that the property in dispute is not an evacuee property but they failed to approach the Custodian and as such "could not possibly be granted the same relief through the back door by invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court. Obviously the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred to grant such a declaration, therefore, from the facts disclosed in the very plaint, the plaint was barred by law and was rightly rejected". It was noted by the learned Judge that the petitioners having failed to specifically plead as to on what date, they came to know of the original order of auction dated 24-9-1974 and mutation dated 14-5-1984, "the suit filed in September, 1990 was obviously barred by limitation. This being so, the two Courts below have not committed any illegality in rejecting the plaint in the suit filed by the petitioners thereby calling for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court" .
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has not been able to controvert the afore-noted factual findings with the result that no legitimate exception can be taken to the view taken by the Courts below particularly their finding that the suit was barred by time. The plaint was, therefore, rightly rejected. No case is made out for interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed and the leave sought is refused. A.A./S-21/S Leave refused.