Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS Respondent: NOOR DIN
1988 S C M R 1221
1988 S C M R 1221
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner
versus
NOOR DIN and 4 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.248 of 1981, decided on 2nd May, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 10‑1‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.11030 of 1980).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.14‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑ Petitioner‑vendee's contention that due to impugned order he was deprived of raising plea of limitation because during pendency of proceedings before different forums, respondents' suit for pre‑emption had become time‑barred, repelled‑‑Petitioner was entitled to rely on section 14 of Limitation Act for exclusion of period spent before different forums‑‑Petition not pressed was dismissed.
Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a vendee in this pre‑emption matter from Judgment dated 10‑1‑1981 of the Lahore High Court; whereby his Constitutional Petition was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel has contended that on account of the impugned orders, the petitioner has been deprived of raising a plea of limitation because during the pendency of the proceedings before different forums, the respondents' suit for pre‑emption had become time‑barred. When pointed out that the petitioner would be entitled to rely on section 14 of the Limitation Act to prove all the conditions mentioned in that provision for exclusion of the period spent by him before different forums, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition any further. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused.
M.I. /M‑436/S Petition dismissed.