| Case ID |
09997069-bd7c-4920-ad4f-37e97aecb995 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No. 1389 of 2004 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 21, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 21, 2005 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of the trial court and appellate court, concluding that the petitioner's right to use a common passage was established by a prior compromise. The court emphasized that the Limitation Act did not apply to revision petitions and that the suo motu jurisdiction should be exercised to correct material errors in lower court judgments. The court found that the rights created by the compromise were binding even if the parties attempted to contest them later. The court also noted that unjustified delays in litigation were detrimental to justice, urging legal representatives to recognize the harmful consequences of frequent adjournments. |
| Summary |
In the case of Ilam Din vs. Hassan Din, the Lahore High Court addressed issues concerning the use of a common passage created through a compromise in a pre-emption suit. The court ruled that the petitioner, Ilam Din, was entitled to use the passage despite objections from Hassan Din and Zainab Bibi, who challenged the validity of the compromise. The court highlighted that the Limitation Act's provisions did not apply to revision petitions, emphasizing the need for the High Court to exercise its supervisory functions to prevent miscarriages of justice. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal agreements and addresses concerns about delays in the judicial process, urging advocates to mitigate unjustified adjournments that hinder the resolution of contentious matters. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Tahir Mehmood,
Muhammad Kazim Khan,
Muhammad Amin Goraya
|
| Petitioners |
ILAM DIN
|
| Respondents |
HASSAN DIN and others
|
| Citations |
2006 SLD 614,
2006 PLD 121
|
| Other Citations |
Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCMR 286,
Haji Rehmdil v. The Province of Balochistan and another 1999 SCMR 1060,
Torabaz Khan an another v. Nanak Chand and another AIR 1932 Lah. 566,
Feroz Khan and others v. Mst. Waziran Bibi 1987 SCMR 1647,
Pandurang Krishnaji v. M. Tukaram and others AIR 1922 PC 20
|
| Laws Involved |
Limitation Act, 1908,
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,
Registration Act, 1908,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
5,
201,
17,
115
|