1982 PLP 995 (SCMR)
PIR MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus EDUCATION TOWN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., LAHORE-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 995 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --O. XIII, r. 1 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 14-Petition for special leave to appeal-Limitation-Delay of 34 days from date of dismissal of second appeal by High Court-Review petition filed against such dismissal only to gain time for filing petition for special leave to appeal-Review petition not dismissed on account of defect of jurisdiction or other similar cause-Section 14, Limitation Act not applicable to such case-Held, delay caused due to review petition cannot be condoned.-Delay-Review. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PIR MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus EDUCATION TOWN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., LAHORE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Supreme Court Rules, 1956, (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 995 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Supreme Court Rules, 1956, (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 995 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --O. XIII, r. 1 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 14-Petition for special leave to appeal-Limitation-Delay of 34 days from date of dismissal of second appeal by High Court-Review petition filed against such dismissal only to gain time for filing petition for special leave to appeal-Review petition not dismissed on account of defect of jurisdiction or other similar cause-Section 14, Limitation Act not applicable to such case-Held, delay caused due to review petition cannot be condoned.-Delay-Review. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 995 (SCMR) (PIR MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus EDUCATION TOWN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., LAHORE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- - S 21-Suit for pre-emption-Zar-e-Panjum-Pre-emptor failing to deposit Zar-e-Panjum despite various extensions in time granted by trial Court and not taking advantage of acceptance of Bank guarantee-Petition for special leave to appeal against rejection of plaint dismissed. Abdullah Dogar, Advocate and Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 25th February, 1981.
- - S 21‑Suit for pre‑emption‑Zar‑e‑Panjum‑Pre‑emptor failing to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjum despite various extensions in time granted by trial Court and not taking advantage of acceptance of Bank guarantee‑Petition for special leave to appeal against rejection of plaint dismissed. Abdullah Dogar, Advocate and Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On petition against the judgment, dated 28-10-1975 of the Lahore High Court in R. S. A. No. 1095 of 1969). --O. XIII, r. 1 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 14-Petition for special leave to appeal-Limitation-Delay of 34 days from date of dismissal of second appeal by High Court-Review petition filed against such dismissal only to gain time for filing petition for special leave to appeal-Review petition not dismissed on account of defect of jurisdiction or other similar cause-Section 14, Limitation Act not applicable to such case-Held, delay caused due to review petition cannot be condoned.-[Delay-Review].
Judgment & Decree
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.‑The petitioner filed a suit for pre‑emption. He was ordered to deposit Rs. 68,580 as Zar‑e‑Panjam on 14‑9‑1968 by 9‑11‑1968. On 31‑10‑1968 the petitioner applied for permission to furnish security instead of making a deposit in cash. The case came up for hearing on the 9th of November, 1968 but the defendant did not appear on that hearing. The case was, therefore, adjourned and the petitioner's application for furnishing security was rejected but the time for making the deposit was extended up to 14‑12‑1968.
2. On 22‑11‑1968 the petitioner applied for permission to furnish a Bank guarantee. This application was allowed on the 26th of November, 1968. On 12‑12‑1968 the petitioner again applied for extension of time as the Bank had been moved by him but the guarantee had not yet been received, On 14‑12‑1968 the learned Court refused to grant further time and rejected the plaint. An appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Additional District Judge and an R. S. A. was similarly dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 10‑7‑1975. On 5‑9‑1975 the petitioner filed an application for review which was dismissed on 28‑10‑1975. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal on 12‑11‑1975.
3. This petition is within time from the dismissal of the review petition in the High Court and is barred by 34 days if limitation is counted from the date when the R. S. A. was dismissed. The review application ha admittedly got no merit in it wherefore we cannot grant leave to appeal against the review application. In fact, the review petition was filed only to gain time for filing the civil petition for special leave to appeal.
4. There is no ground to condone the delay in filing the petition against the judgment delivered in the Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he should be allowed the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act. Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not attracted to the facts of this case because the review petition was not dismissed on account of a "defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like nature".
5. This petition for special leave to appeal is, therefore, not maintainable because of the bar of limitation. So far as the merits of the case a concerned there is nothing which could be said in favour of the petitioner. He was given enough latitude by the learned Civil Judge and if he could not g take advantage of the various extensions in time granted to him and the acceptance of his prayer to furnish a Bank guarantee, there is nothing which this Court could do to extricate him from the predicament in which he has lodged himself. This petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. Petition dismissed.