1990SCMR946 (PLP)
AUTHORITY, MULTAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus HABIB BANK Ltd. and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990SCMR946 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | AUTHORITY, MULTAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus HABIB BANK Ltd. and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR946 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR946 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR946 (PLP) (AUTHORITY, MULTAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus HABIB BANK Ltd. and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th August, 1989.
- Khalid Farooq Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8‑10‑1986 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 297 of 1984). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioner whose application for execution of money decree was rejected as time‑barred, contended that when due effect is given to Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 removing hardship created by Art. 182 of Limitation Act, same could not be re‑introduced through any rule of interpretation and on: the day application for execution was filed, period , of limitation for filing same, was six years and same being within said period, was not time‑barred‑‑‑Questions raised by petitioners which were raised and answered in another case, requiring examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted. Mirza Akbar Ali v. National Bank of Pakistan 1985 SCMR 190 ref. Khalid Farooq Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioner whose application for execution of money decree was rejected as time‑barred, contended that when due effect is given to Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 removing hardship created by Art. 182 of Limitation Act, same could not be re‑introduced through any rule of interpretation and on: the day application for execution was filed, period , of limitation for filing same, was six years and same being within said period, was not time‑barred‑‑‑Questions raised by petitioners which were raised and answered in another case, requiring examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted. Mirza Akbar Ali v. National Bank of Pakistan 1985 SCMR 190 ref. Khalid Farooq Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th August, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners; against the dismissal by the High Court, of a Civil Revision. It had arisen out of rejection of petitioners' application for execution of a money decree as time‑barred. Learned counsel has contended that when due effect is given to the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 removing the hardship created by Article 182 of the Limitation Act, the same could not be re‑introduced through any so‑called rule of interpretation. According to him on the day the application for execution was filed‑‑26‑6‑1983, the period of limitation for riling the same, was six years. And the same being within the said period, was not time‑barred. We have noticed that a similar question raised before this Court in another case was answered in Mirza Akbar Ali v. National Bank of Pakistan 1985 SCMR
190. The effect thereof as also the questions raised by the learned counsel and those raised in this petition A require examination. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. H.B.T./S‑479/S Leave granted.