2000SCMR 1135 (PLP)
SHAHID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Respondent
| Citation | 2000SCMR 1135 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hassan Khan, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000SCMR 1135 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000SCMR 1135 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hassan Khan, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000SCMR 1135 (PLP) (SHAHID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Abdul Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
S.5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Appeal dismissed as time-barred
High Court while dismissing revision petition filed by petitioner had found that the petitioner applied for copy of order dated 20-6-1992 on 13-9-1992; copy was delivered to him on the very date but appeal was filed on 1-12-1994 and no explanation whatsoever, for condoning the inordinate delay of more than two years was forthcoming
Order of High Court being right, leave was refused in circumstances. Rana Abdul Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st December, 1999. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 25-10-1999 passed in Civil Revision No.622 of 1996 by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench.
2. It is not necessary to give detailed history of the case. Suffice it to say that a suit for specific performance of the agreement, dated 15-7-1984 to sell the land, allegedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent, was decreed ex parte on 29-6-1989. Application. of the petitioner for setting aside the same was dismissed on 20-6-1992, in that, despite various opportunities provided to the petitioner he failed to produce his evidence which was eventually closed on 23-5-1992. Appeal filed against the above order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh on 4-4-1996 being barred by time as well as on merits. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the High Court also failed vide impugned judgment, dated 25-10-1999, in that, the petitioner failed to tender any explanation, whatsoever, as to inordinate delay in filing appeal against the order, dated 20-6-1992 and that the order was within the contemplation of Order XVII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material available on record. The impugned order appears to be unexceptionable and in conformity with the case of Siddique Gohar v. Fazal Rehman (PLD 1987 Pesh. 24) wherein in somewhat identical circumstances this Court upheld the order of closure of evidence. Additionally, the learned Judge in Chambers was quite right in observing that the petitioner applied for the copy of order, dated 20-6-1992 on 13-9-1994. Copy was delivered to him on the very date but the appeal 8 was resorted to only on 1-12-1994. No explanation, whatsoever, for condoning the above inordinate delay of more than two years is forthcoming.
4. Not finding any force in this petition, the same is dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S-6/S Petition dismissed.