2001 PLP 286 (SCMR)
ALLAH DINO and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 286 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry |
| Parties | ALLAH DINO and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 286 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 286 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 286 (SCMR) (ALLAH DINO and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdur Rahim Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Miss Wajahat Niaz, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th October, 2000.
- Learned counsel appearing for respondents opposed condonation of delay in filing the revision principally on the ground that section 5 of Limitation Act has not been made applicable under section 29(2) of the Limitation Act on a revision filed under section 115, C.P.C. which prescribes its own period of limitation i.e. 90 days.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, dated 11-5-2000 passed in R.A. No.34 of 1998).
S. 115--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Provisions of S. 5, Limitation Act, 1908
Revision was dismissed by High Court as being time-barred and delay was not condoned
High Court refused to condone the delay for the reasons that the provisions of S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, were not applicable to the proceedings under S. 115, C.P.C. in view of the provision of S. 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908
Where the statute governing the proceedings did not prescribe period of limitation, the proceedings instituted thereunder would be controlled by Limitation Act, 1908, as a whole
Where the law under which proceedings had been launched had itself prescribed a period of limitation as under S. 115, C.P.C. then the benefits of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, could not be availed unless the same had been made applicable as per S. 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908
No flaw in the judgment of High Court relating to interpretation of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 qua S. 115(2), C.P.C. having been found leave to appeal was refused. 1994 SCMR 883 and 1995 SCMR 197 distinguished. The Canara Bank, Ltd. v. The Warden Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1935 Born. 35; Abdul Ghaffar and others v: Mst. Mumtaz PLD 1982 SC 572; Ali Muhammad and another v. Fazal Hussain and others 1983 SCMR 1239; Collector of Customs (Appraisement) v. Messrs Saleem Adaya, Karachi PLD 1999 Kar. 76 and Haji Muhammad Ashraf v. The State and 3 others 1999 MLD 330 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
Petitioners seek leave to file appeal against the order, dated May 11, 2000 passed by High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Bench, whereby Revision application filed by them has been dismissed.
2. Petitioners successfully sought conversion of an incompetent appeal barred by 54 days into a Civil Revision under section 115, C.P.C. with the prayer that the delay occasioned in filing same till the institution of original proceedings i.e. appeal be condoned under section 5 of Limitation Act and an application in respect whereof was separately submitted. Learned counsel appearing for respondents opposed condonation of delay in filing the revision principally on the ground that section 5 of Limitation Act has not been made applicable under section 29(2) of the Limitation Act on a revision filed under section 115, C.P.C. which prescribes its own period of limitation i.e. 90 days.
3. Learned Single Judge in Chamber of High Court of Sindh associated himself with the contention put forward by respondents' counsel, and treating Civil Revision Petition barred by time dismissed the same vide impugned order, dated May 11, 2000.
4. Petitioners' learned counsel contended that section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to Civil Revision proceedings instituted under section 115, C.P.C. in terms of its language. Reliance was placed on 1994 SCMR 883 and 1995 SCMR 197.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the proposition under examination. There is no cavil with the argument that if the Statute governing the proceedings does not prescribe period of limitation, the proceedings instituted thereunder shall be controlled by the Limitation Act as a Whole. But where the law under which proceedings have been launched prescribes itself a period of limitation like under section 115, C.P.C. then benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be availed unless it has been made applicable as per section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, as held in the cases (i) The Canara Bank Ltd. v. The Warden Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 1935 Bombay 35), (ii) Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst. Mumtaz (PLD 1982 SC 572), (iii) Ali Muhammad and another v. Fuai Hussain and others (1983 SCMR 1239), (iv) Collector of Customs (Appraisement) v. Messrs Saleem Adaya, Karachi (PLD 1999 Karachi 76) and (v) Haji Muhammad Ashraf v. The State and 3 others (1999 MLD 330).
6. The reported judgments cited by learned counsel being distinguishable need no detailed discussion.
7. Thus, we fail to notice any flaw in the impugned judgment relating to interpretation of section 5 of Limitation Act, qua section 115(2), C.P.C. therefore, no interference is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed being without any substance and leave to appeal is refused. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./A-105/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.