| Case ID |
00b23d09-bf4b-46ae-85cf-39f912e8f3cf |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Suit No. 493 of 2001 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 17, 2002 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court, presided over by Judge Wahid Bux Brohi, dismissed the plaint filed by the plaintiff, Kazim Imam Jan, on the grounds of it being time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1908. The court meticulously examined the plaintiff's claims and the associated legal frameworks, including the Specific Relief Act and the Civil Procedure Code. It was determined that the plaintiff failed to prosecute the case within the statutory limitation periods despite having legal representation and being aware of the laws governing such proceedings. The court highlighted that the plaintiff's repeated changes of attorneys and failure to act diligently in enforcing his rights contributed to the dismissal of his case. Additionally, the court referenced prior judgments that emphasize the necessity of adhering to limitation periods and the inability of higher courts to extend these periods based on previous rulings. Consequently, the court upheld the defendants' plea to reject the plaint, thereby preventing the plaintiff from seeking relief after the lapse of the prescribed timeframes. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case Civil Suit No. 493 of 2001 adjudicated by the Sindh High Court on July 17, 2002, the plaintiff, Kazim Imam Jan, sought multiple reliefs regarding the possession and title of the property located at No. C-79, Block No. 4, F.B. Area, Karachi. The case revolved around the plaintiff's claim of rightful ownership and his contention that the defendants, led by Muhammad Jawaid and others, were unlawfully occupying the premises. Central to the dispute were several legal statutes, including the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), and the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), which governed the permissible timeframe for initiating such legal actions. The plaintiff's position was that prior proceedings and a directive from the Supreme Court warranted an extension of the limitation period, allowing him to file the suit within an acceptable timeframe. However, the court found that the plaintiff had not adhered to the statutory deadlines despite being represented by multiple legal advocates over the years. The court emphasized the importance of the Limitation Act in ensuring timely resolution of legal disputes and held that no extensions could be inferred from previous court observations or directives. Furthermore, the plaintiff's reliance on past rent proceedings to justify the delay was dismissed, as the court clarified that such actions did not equate to prosecuting the same cause of action within the limitation period. The decision underscored the judiciary's stance on the non-negotiable nature of limitation periods and the necessity for litigants to act diligently. By rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court affirmed the principle that legal remedies must be sought within the prescribed timeframes, thereby maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the judicial system. This case serves as a precedent for the strict enforcement of limitation laws in civil cases, highlighting the challenges plaintiffs face when attempting to revive long-dormant disputes without justifiable cause for the delay. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Gul Muhammad,
Noor Muhammad,
KAZIM IMAM JAN,
MUHAMMAD JAWAID,
Ghulam Mohiuddin Qureshi,
S. Riaz Hussain Shah,
Syed Sajjad Ali Shah,
Rukhsana Tabassum Shaikh,
Mst. Rukhsana Tabassum
|
| Judges |
WAHID BUX BROHI
|
| Lawyers |
S. Riaz Hussain Shah,
Syed Sajjad Ali Shah
|
| Petitioners |
KAZIM IMAM JAN
|
| Respondents |
4 others,
MUHAMMAD JAWAID
|
| Citations |
2003 SLD 2459 = 2003 CLC 200
|
| Other Citations |
C.P.L.A. No. 287-K of 2000,
1975 SCMR 304,
1982 SCMR 285,
Ghulam Ali v. Akhter PLD 1991 SC 957
|
| Laws Involved |
Limitation Act (IX of 1908),
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
S.14,
S.8,
S.35,
S.42,
O.VII,
R.11
|