Commencement of limitation

2018 CLC 1239 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 12Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 113Suit for specific performance of agreement to sellLimitationNo time fixed by the parties for performance of contractCommencement of limitationProcedureContention of plaintiff was that no date or time was fixed by the parties for performance of contractSuit was decreed concurrentlyValidity

If time or a date for performance of contract was fixed in the contract itself then limitation for a suit for its specific performance would start from such date irrespective of refusal of performance by the defendant and whether plaintiff had notice of such refusal or not

If no such date was fixed then limitation would start from the date when performance of contract was refused by the defendant or from the date when plaintiff had notice of such refusal

If no date or time for performance of a contract was fixed then there would be no question of time being essence of contract

Present suit ought to have been instituted by the plaintiff within three years from the date of refusal by the defendant or from the date of notice of such refusal

Starting point of limitation in the present case was the date of refusal by the defendant or the date on which plaintiff had first notice of such refusal

Such starting point of limitation could be ascertained only by the pleadings and evidence of the parties

Plaintiff had not disclosed any such date in his plaint and evidence

Plaintiff in his evidence had stated that he approached the defendant after three/four months of execution of sale agreement for registration of document by offering balance amount to him

Plaintiff was aware for the first time after three/four months of execution of sale agreement that defendant had refused to perform his part of contract

Starting point of limitation in the present case was January, 2005

Present suit was to be instituted by the plaintiff latest by January, 2008

Payment of alleged balance consideration by the plaintiff on 08-09-2008 was inconsequential as limitation for filing the present suit had already expired in January, 2008

Suit instituted by the plaintiff was barred by time in circumstances

Findings recorded by the Courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence

Discretionary relief of specific performance was granted to the plaintiff in absence of any material showing that he was ready and willing to perform his agreed part of contract

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were set aside and suit was dismissed

Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2017 CLC 1381 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 96Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.12(2)AppealLimitationCommencement of limitationWords "time requisite for obtaining copy"ScopeNon-impleadment of necessary party in the appealEffectAppellate Court dismissed appeal being time-barredValidityAppellant moved copying agency on 12-01-2012 wherein date for supply of copies was given as 14-01-2012

Nothing was on record whether appellant either on 14-01-2012 or at subsequent stage approached the copying agency and any further date for supply of copies was endorsed

Required copies were prepared on 29-05-2012 but appellant received the same on 12-06-2012

Had the appellant approached the copying agency on 14-01-2012 then there would have been any endorsement by it intimating any future date for supply of copies

Starting date in order to calculate the limitation for filing an appeal would be considered as 29-05-2012 when required copies were prepared by the copying agency

Appellant had failed to justify the delay caused in filing the appeal which was filed on 37th day of limitation

Appellant had not arrayed the other defendants in the line of respondents

Either the original defendant nor the other one had ever filed any appeal

Appeal was not competent due to non-impleadment of necessary parties

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 196 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 31Suit for possession through pre-emptionCommencement of limitation

Limitation for pre-emption suit had to be computed from the date of registration of sale deed or attestation of mutation or taking over physical possession of the land in question by the vendee or of the knowledge of the pre-emptor if the transaction was not covered under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of S.31 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987.