| Case ID |
eb4909a4-6515-4cc0-83e5-34f0df041830 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-2 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 14, 1980 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petition filed by MST. ASMA ZAFARUL HASSAN seeking to set aside the sale of property executed in favor of MESSRS UNITED BANK LTD. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred under Article 166 of the Limitation Act, which stipulates that the limitation starts from the date of sale, defined as the date the hammer falls at public auction or when an offer is accepted in a private sale. The Tribunal reiterated that the petitioner failed to prove any substantial loss resulting from alleged irregularities in the sale process or the publication of the sale proclamation. The decision emphasized the necessity for timely objections and upheld the validity of the sale conducted under the Civil Procedure Code, asserting that the court has inherent powers to adapt procedures in the interest of justice. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the application of the Limitation Act and the Civil Procedure Code in the context of property sales executed under a decree. MST. ASMA ZAFARUL HASSAN challenged the sale of her property, which was conducted by MESSRS UNITED BANK LTD. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, presided over by JUSTICES MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, and ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, analyzed the procedural aspects of the sale and the petitioner's claims. The Tribunal concluded that the application was not filed within the stipulated time frame as per Article 166 of the Limitation Act, which clearly outlines that the limitation period begins at the time of sale, not at the issuance of the sale certificate. It was also noted that the petitioner did not substantiate her claims regarding the alleged violations in the sale process, particularly regarding the publication of the sale proclamation. The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the necessity for litigants to actively participate in the process to raise objections effectively. The ruling supports the notion that technicalities in procedural law should not overshadow the substantive justice that the courts aim to uphold. |
| Court |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD HALEEM,
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN,
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH
|
| Lawyers |
Fazle Ghani Khan,
Noor Ahmad Noori
|
| Petitioners |
MST. ASMA ZAFARUL HASSAN
|
| Respondents |
MESSRS UNITED BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER
|
| Citations |
1981 SLD 103,
1981 SCMR 108
|
| Other Citations |
Sham Singh and others v. Vir Bhan and others A I R 1942 Lah. 102,
Gauri v. Ude and others A I R 1942 Lah. 153,
Sitaram v. Asaram A I R 1924 Nag. 108,
Ghulam Abbas v. Zohra Bibi and another P L D 1972 S C 337,
Narsing Das v. Mangal Dubey (1883) 5 All. 163
|
| Laws Involved |
Limitation Act (IX of 1908),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
Art. 166,
O. XXI, rr. 65 & 90,
O. XXI, r. 65
|