1988S67 (PLP)
Present: Muhammad AfzaZ Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ Versus IMAM BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988S67 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of‑1913), S.21‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑ High Court would not be obliged to examine question of limitation vis‑a‑vis institution before a lower Court, if not raised by the party concerned before the lower Court‑‑It would, however, be open to High Court if, in the circumstances of a particular case, it was deemed proper to notice and examine the question of limitation. p. 632 A |
| Bench Members | Muhammad AfzaZ Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Present: Muhammad AfzaZ Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ Versus IMAM BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988S67 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988S67 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of‑1913), S.21‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑ High Court would not be obliged to examine question of limitation vis‑a‑vis institution before a lower Court, if not raised by the party concerned before the lower Court‑‑It would, however, be open to High Court if, in the circumstances of a particular case, it was deemed proper to notice and examine the question of limitation. p. 632 A bench comprising: Muhammad AfzaZ Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988S67 (PLP) (Present: Muhammad AfzaZ Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ Versus IMAM BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st June, 1988
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18‑5‑1985 in R.S.A. No.218 of 1976). Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of‑1913), S.21‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑ High Court would not be obliged to examine question of limitation vis‑a‑vis institution before a lower Court, if not raised by the party concerned before the lower Court‑‑It would, however, be open to High Court if, in the circumstances of a particular case, it was deemed proper to notice and examine the question of limitation. [p. 632] A Allah Yar Khan v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1986 S C M R 1957 ref. Muhammad Buta v. Habib Ahmad P L D 1985 S C 153 fol.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the pre‑emptors' side against the acceptance of the Regular Second Appeal of the respondents‑vendees. The trial Court had taken note of point of limitation without objection from the respondents' side in their written statement and had dismissed the suit of the petitioners as time‑barred. The first Court of appeal reversed the trial Court's decision and decreed the petitioners' suit. The High Court allowed respondents' second appeal, and remanded the case to the trial Court for adjudication "afresh on all points". The only point raised by the learned counsel before us is of limitation. Relying on Allah Yar Khan v. NIst. Sardar Bibi and others (1986 S C M R 1957) learned counsel has contended that the respondents not having taken any objection regarding limitation in their written statement, it was not open to the High 7ourt to examine this question. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel no doubt prima facie supports him; but on proper reading thereof it has to be remarked that although it has been ruled in the cited judgment as also in some other recent judgments of this Court that the High' Court would not be obliged to examine the question of limitation vis‑a‑vis institution be ore a lower Court if not raised by the party concerned before the lower Court; it would, however, be open to it if, in the circumstances of a particular case, it is deemed proper to notice and examine the question of limitation. Such was the type of case reported in Muhammad Buta v. Habib Ahmad (P L D 1985 SC 153). In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court refused to interfere, when the High Court had examined the question of limitation. In the light of what has been stated above, we find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. M.B.A/G‑114/S Petition dismissed.