1986 PLP 2011 (SCMR)
BASHIR BEG — Petitioner Versus AFTAB AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2011 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Nusrat and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR BEG — Petitioner Versus AFTAB AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2011 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2011 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. A. Nusrat and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2011 (SCMR) (BASHIR BEG — Petitioner Versus AFTAB AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Ziauddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: October 15, 1986.
- Sh. Ziauddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, dated 27th February, 1985 in Civil Revision No. 139 of 1983). --Art. 185(3)--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) , S . 115--Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of--Question of limitation--Leave to appeal granted to examine contention that although Appellate Court had specifically held that suit of respondent was time-barred, High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction while restoring decree awarded in favour of respondent by Trial Court, did not advert to question of limitation.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑The background in which this petition for leave to appeal is filed is this that a suit was brought by the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents namely Mst. Amir Fatima alleging that she was in possession as owner of a portion of the disputed property basing her title on a written gift deed, dated 16th May, 1966 Which the present petitioner had executed in her favour inter alia on her marrying his stepson namely Aftab Ahmad respondent No.
1. She married respondent No. 1 on 17th May, 1966 and claimed to have occupied the disputed property as full owner ever since that date. The trial Court decreed the suit but on appeal preferred by the petitioner the decree was set aside. Thereupon Mst. Amir Fatima filed civil revision challenging the appellate Court's judgment which was accepted on 27th February, 1985 by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The main point which is being urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Court had specifically held that the suit of Mst. Amir Fatima was time‑barred but the learned High Court Judge while exercising his revisional jurisdiction and restoring the decree awarded in favour of Mst. Amir Fatima by the trial Court had not at all adverted to the question of limitation. The contention needs further examination. Leave is granted. Security for costs Rs.1,
000. The appeal will be heard on the same record. M.I. Leave granted.