1989SCMR645 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD and another — Petitioners Versus AKOZAI and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR645 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IRSHAD and another — Petitioners Versus AKOZAI and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Provincially Administered Tribal Areas of North-West Frontier Province (Application of Laws) Regulation (III of 1975) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR645 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Provincially Administered Tribal Areas of North-West Frontier Province (Application of Laws) Regulation (III of 1975) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR645 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR645 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IRSHAD and another — Petitioners Versus AKOZAI and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Siraj-ul-Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 1988.
- Maulvi Siraj‑ul‑Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 12-1-1987, passed in Writ Petition No.136 of 1983).
Regln.2--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Time-barred suit, plea of--Petitioners' predecessor obtaining possession of property through pre- emption suit in 1952--Contesting respondent filing declaratory suit against petitioners in respect of pre-empted property in 1977--High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction held the suit to be within time--Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether suit filed by contesting respondent was barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN OAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, dated 12‑1‑1987.
2. The facts as given in the petition are that Noor Dad Khan (respondent No.2) sold the land in dispute to one Rahim Dad Khan through a sale‑deed No.31 on 4‑6‑1952. The petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest succeeded in obtaining the possession of the suit property through a pre‑emption suit on 9‑9‑1952 against the payment of a consideration of Rs. 3,
500. The decree was passed by the then Shariat Court which was later on confirmed by the Musheer of Swat State. The petitioners are in enjoyment of the suit property since then.
3. On the merger of the Swat State, one Salar Muhammad, brother‑in‑law of respondent No.l, during the Settlement claimed the suit property to be the property of respondent No.1 but this claim was turned down by the Tehsildar Settlement in 1977. Respondent No.l who was residing in Thailand since 50 years came to Pakistan and instituted a declaratory suit against the petitioners on 5‑9‑1977 under PATA Regulation of 1975 before the Deputy Commissioner. The suit was resisted by the petitioners on a number of grounds and the plea of limitation was also raised. The trial Court did not agree with the question of bar of limitation raised by the petitioners vide its order dated 29‑3‑1978. The petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No. 4 which was accepted on 2‑8‑1978 and the suit filed by respondent No.l was held as barred by time. The revision filed by the said respondent before the Secretary Home to the Government of N.W.F.P. was dismissed on 16‑3‑1983 but he, however, succeeded in obtaining a favourable order from the High Court through a Constitutional petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He vehemently contended that the two authorities acting under the PATA Regulation after considering the case of the parties came to the conclusion that the suit filed by respondent No.l was barred by time. The High Court has, therefore acted in excess of its jurisdiction by holding the suit to be within time.
5. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel in the light of the record we think that the question whether the suit filed by respondent No.l was barred by time needs consideration. We, therefore, grant leave in the matter. A Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be heard on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. The operation of the order of the High Court is hereby suspended and it is directed that the appeal may be heard at an early date. A.A./M‑704/S Leave to appeal granted.