1994CLC2189 (PLP)
Mst. SALMA BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALI SHER and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994CLC2189 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Zarin Kiani, J |
| Parties | Mst. SALMA BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALI SHER and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994CLC2189 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994CLC2189 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Zarin Kiani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994CLC2189 (PLP) (Mst. SALMA BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALI SHER and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jari Ullah Khan for Petitioner.
- Mian Sher Alam for Respondents,
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O.XLI, R. 31‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3‑‑‑Judgment in appeal not conforming to a proper form as required by law‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellate Court in a laconically brief judgment consisting of a couple of lines found that the suit was barred by limitation‑‑‑Judgment in question neither referred to the facts of the case nor evidence adduced in it nor the locus standi of plaintiff to institute the suit‑‑‑Appellate Court notwithstanding such patent deficiency in the impugned judgment, dismissed appeal as being without merit and force‑‑ Appellate Court did not examine as to how bar of limitation was attracted to plaintiff's suit‑‑‑Judgment in' question, thus, did not conform to the form of a proper judgment of the case as required by law‑‑‑Judgment in question, being not a proper disposal of appeal was set aside and case was remanded .for re‑hearing of appeal on merit and its decision afresh in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Revision No. 1477 of 1990, heard on 6th June, 1994. ‑‑‑‑O.XLI, R. 31‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3‑‑‑Judgment in appeal not conforming to a proper form as required by law‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellate Court in a laconically brief judgment consisting of a couple of lines found that the suit was barred by limitation‑‑‑Judgment in question neither referred to the facts of the case nor evidence adduced in it nor the locus standi of plaintiff to institute the suit‑‑‑Appellate Court notwithstanding such patent deficiency in the impugned judgment, dismissed appeal as being without merit and force‑‑ Appellate Court did not examine as to how bar of limitation was attracted to plaintiff's suit‑‑‑Judgment in' question, thus, did not conform to the form of a proper judgment of the case as required by law‑‑‑Judgment in question, being not a proper disposal of appeal was set aside and case was remanded .for re‑hearing of appeal on merit and its decision afresh in accordance with law. Jari Ullah Khan for Petitioner. Mian Sher Alam for Respondents, Date of hearing: 6th June, 1994. This civil revision by a female plaintiff from the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh dated 1‑3‑1990 holding the suit instituted by plaintiff for a share in the inheritance of the land left by one Qasib deserves to succeed on the short score of patent deficiency in reasons which is the hallmark of a judgment of a Court. In a laconically brief judgment consisting of a couple of lines in a short paragraph, learned Judge found that the suit was barred by limitation. He neither referred to the facts of the case nor evidence adduced in it nor the locus standi of the plaintiff to institute the suit and yet felt content to dismiss the appeal being without any merits and force. Learned Judge below did not examine as to how the bar of limitation was attracted to the plaintiff's suit. In brief, the impugned judgment did not conform to a proper judgment of the case as required by law. Furthermore, it was not a proper disposal of appeal by him. I would therefore, set it aside and remand the case to the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh for re‑hearing of the appeal on merits and its decision afresh in accordance with law. Costs to be borne as incurred. A.A./S‑502/L Case remanded.