1989 PLP 1780 (SCMR)
SIRAJ DIN and others Petitioners Versus RAJADA Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1780 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | SIRAJ DIN and others Petitioners Versus RAJADA Respondent |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1780 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1780 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1780 (SCMR) (SIRAJ DIN and others Petitioners Versus RAJADA Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Azhar, Advocate Supremo Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Abdur Rashid Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Mullan Bench, dated 5‑4‑1981 in Civil Revision No.68‑D of 1981). ‑‑‑S.5‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Appeal (civil)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider inter alia, whether filing of one appeal against the consolidated judgment in two consolidated suits relating to same or similar subject, had not satisfied the requirement of law; if not, whether mere .technical controversy should not have been resolved in favour of the petitioners, whether even if there was a technical delay in filing the second appeal, it should not have been condoned under S.5 of the Limitation Act and whether the High Court should not have in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction acted in aid of justice and should not have corrected the error.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants side against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. The respondent‑plaintiff had filed two Suits Nos. 6 and 7 of 1972. Both were consolidated and were decreed by one consolidated judgment. The petitioners filed an appeal against the one consolidated judgment. As stated by the learned counsel, during the arguments of the said appeal, it was felt that a formal separate appeal was also necessary so as to challenge the two decrees separately. The petitioners then filed another appeal which was 4ismissed as time‑barred. Their Civil Revision also was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that their appeal before the District Court was badly time‑barred. Leave to appeal has now been sought. After hearing the learned counsel, we consider it a fit case to examine, inter alias whether filing of one appeal against the consolidated judgment in two consolidated suits relating to same or similar subject, had not satisfied the requirement of law if not, whether mere technical controversy should not have been resolved in favour of the petitioners. Secondly; whether even if there was a technical delay in filing the second appeal, it should not have been condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act. And lastly, whether the High Court should not have in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, acted in aid of justice and should not have corrected the error. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to file all necessary additional documents. M.A.K./S‑407/S Leave granted.