| Case ID |
2e86e022-ed1f-4062-b02b-c1dd606a6657 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No. 112 of 2007 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 30, 2012 |
| Hearing Date |
Jun 29, 2012 |
| Decision |
The Balochistan High Court remanded the case to the appellate court, emphasizing that the limitation period stipulated by the Limitation Act (IX of 1908) is mandatory and cannot be waived. The court held that the appellate court should decide the matter based on the available evidence without remanding it unnecessarily, thereby avoiding prolonged litigation. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods and ensures that legal proceedings are conducted efficiently and fairly. |
| Summary |
In the landmark decision of Civil Revision No. 112 of 2007, adjudicated by the esteemed Balochistan High Court on July 30, 2012, under the jurisdiction of Judge MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J., the court meticulously examined the intricacies of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908). The petitioner, GHULAM MUHAMMAD, represented by Mian Badar Munir, contested the respondent FIDA HUSSAIN's claims, with legal representation from Muhammad Ejaz Sawati and Amanullah Khan, A.G. The core issue revolved around the applicability of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that limitation periods are statutory mandates that cannot be waived, even with mutual consent. The High Court critiqued the appellate court's decision to remand the case, asserting that sufficient evidence was present to adjudicate the matter on its merits without further delays. Referencing pivotal cases such as Muhammad Mukhtar and others v. Muhammad Sharif and others (2007 SCMR 1867) and Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmed and others (PLD 1985 SC 153 rel.), the court reinforced the non-waivable nature of limitation periods. The judgment highlighted the necessity for courts to proactively address limitation issues rather than deferring them to party pleadings, ensuring timely and just resolutions. By invoking Order XLI, Rule 24 C.P.C., the court directed the appellate court to finalize the case based on existing records, thereby preventing redundant litigation and safeguarding the parties from undue legal burdens. This ruling not only underscores the paramount importance of statutory compliance in legal proceedings but also serves as a guiding precedent for future cases involving limitation laws. The emphasis on mandatory limitation provisions aims to streamline judicial processes, enhance legal efficiency, and uphold the rule of law by ensuring that cases are resolved within prescribed timeframes. Furthermore, the decision exemplifies the judiciary's commitment to equitable legal practices, balancing procedural rigor with the substantive rights of the parties involved. By setting aside the previous appellate judgment and remanding the case with clear directives, the High Court has reinforced the integrity and authority of statutory laws in Pakistan's legal framework. This case serves as a critical reference for legal practitioners, scholars, and the judiciary in understanding the application and implications of limitation laws, ultimately contributing to a more predictable and fair legal system. |
| Court |
Balochistan High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J
|
| Lawyers |
Mian Badar Munir,
Muhammad Ejaz Sawati,
Amanullah Khan, A.G.
|
| Petitioners |
GHULAM MUHAMMAD
|
| Respondents |
FIDA HUSSAIN
|
| Citations |
2012 SLD 2609,
2012 YLR 2560
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Mukhtar and others v. Muhammad Sharif and others 2007 SCMR 1867,
Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmed and others PLD 1985 SC 153,
Sitharama v. Krishnaswami ILR 38 Mad. 374,
Remamurthy v. Gopayya I L R 40 Mad. 701,
Kundo Mal v. Firm Daulat Ram AIR 1940 Lah. 75
|
| Laws Involved |
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
|
| Sections |
S.3
|