1991 PLP 858 (CLC)
KABIR KHAN and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus Mst. RAJ BIBI and others ‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 858 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hassan, J |
| Parties | KABIR KHAN and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus Mst. RAJ BIBI and others ‑‑‑ Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 858 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 858 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Akhtar Hassan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 858 (CLC) (KABIR KHAN and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus Mst. RAJ BIBI and others ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Waliced for Petitioners.
- Abdus Samad Hashmi‑for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ O.XL1, R‑17‑Limilation Act (IX of 1908), S.12 ‑‑‑ Where copy of decree sheet appealed against had not been prepared by Trial Court, there was no occasion for Appellate Court to have dismissed appeal for want of decree sheet, but it should have been kept pending till Trial Court could have prepared decree sheet and issued copy thereof ‑‑‑ In absence of original decree sheet, appellant could ask for its preparation, obtain its copy and then file appeal counting limitation from its date of preparation. Mst. Karimat v. Majnoon and 2 'others 1980 C L C 00 and Abdul Ghafoor and another v; Sher Ahmed and others P L D 1961 (W.P.) Lah. 366 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Mst. Karimat v. Majnoon and 2 'others 1980 C L C 00 and Abdul Ghafoor and another v; Sher Ahmed and others P L D 1961 (W.P.) Lah. 366 ref. Abdul Waliced for Petitioners. Abdus Samad Hashmi-for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th March, 1991. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 18-12-1976 of the learned District Judge, Sargodha, whereby the petitioners' appeal was dismissed for want of copy of the decree sheet.
2. Mr. Ahmed Waheed Khan, Advocate for the petitioners relied upon Mst. Karimat v. Majnoon and 2 others (1980 C L C 66) in support of his contention that the copy of the decree sheet having not been prepared by the trial Court, there was no occasion for the Appellate Court to have dismissed the appeal. According to him, it should have been kept pending till the trial Court could have prepared the original decree sheet and issued a copy thereof. His contention was that since the appeal lay from a decree and that there being no decree at all, the very appeal was nullity. He added that the appeal would lie only after the preparation of the decree and that until the same was drawn by the trial Court, the right to appeal would remain suspended.
3. Mr. Abdul Samad Hashmi, Advocate for the respondents has no cavil with this proposition. In fact Abdul Ghafoor and another v. Slier Ahmad and others P L D 1961 (W.P,) Lahore 366 was also to the same effect. Two different periods spent on obtaining certified copies -of the judgment and decree sheet were individually allowed to be excluded for purposes of computing limitation for the appeal. Evidently the inference was that in the absence of the original decree sheet one could ask for its preparation, obtain its copy and then file an appeal counting limitation from its date of preparation.
4. Consequently the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside; and the case is remanded to the lower Appellate Court where the appeal shall remain pending till after the decree sheet is prepared by the trial Court and a copy issued in favour of the petitioner appellant. This exercise, however, shall be subject to limitation counting primarily from the date of preparation of decree itself. H.B.T./K-313/L. Revision allowed.