Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 116
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Year of Decision: 2025
Decision Date: 2025-02-27
Parties: Mst. Rabia Parveen vs Chaudhry Muhammad Tariq etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court on 2025-02-27, officially reported as 2025 IHC 116. In this matter between Mst. Rabia Parveen and Chaudhry Muhammad Tariq etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2025IHC116
Court Name: Islamabad High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Azam Khan Title: Mst. Rabia Parveen vs Chaudhry Muhammad Tariq etc Case No.: Regular Second Appeal No. 4 Of 2024 Date of Judgment:2025-02-27 Reported As: 2025 IHC 116 Result: Appeal Dismissed
Judgment
ORDER Through the instant Regular Second Appeal, the Appellant has assailed the Judgment and Decree dated 10.2.2024 ("Impugned Judgment and Decree I") passed by the Civil Judge, 1st Class, Islamabad-East ("Trial Court") whereby the Suit for Declaration, Cancellation, Possession and Injunction filed by the Appellant as well as the Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction filed by the Respondent No. 1 [Ch. Muhammad Tariq] were dismissed. The Appellant has further assailed the Judgment and Decree dated 18.7.2024 ("Impugned Judgment and Decree II") passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Islamabad (East) ("Appellate Court") whereby the Appeal filed by the Appellant against the Impugned Judgment and Decree I has been dismissed whereas the appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 against the Impugned Judgment and Decree I has been accepted. 2. Arsalan Khan son of Abdul Bari Khan who is one of the legal heirs of Mst. Rabia Parveen filed the instant Appeal challenging the Impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Appellate Court. The record shows that the application for the issuance of certified copy was submitted on 25.07.2024, and the certified copy was prepared on the same date. The instant appeal was filed on 23.10.2024 i.e. after 97 days from the date of the Impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Appellate Court. As such the instant Appeal is badly time-barred. Under Article 156 of the Limitation Act 1908 ("Limitation Act") ninety days limitation period is provided for filing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Appellant is required to demonstrate sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time period. The Appellant's counsel claimed that Arsalan Khan, one of the legal heirs,
---
## Page 2
was ill and provided a photocopy of medical prescription dated 18.07.2024 from a private doctor, recommending one week of bed rest. However, this prescription was not from a government hospital and cannot be considered as sufficient evidence. The Appellant's counsel also failed to explain why the Appeal could not have been filed within the limitation period after the one-week bed rest. Furthermore, another legal heir, Mst. Sobia, daughter of Abdul Bari Khan, could have also filed the Appeal but she did not do so. Therefore, under the present circumstances, the Appeal is time-barred by seven days, and the Appellant's counsel has not provided a satisfactory explanation for each day of delay. 3. For what has been discussed above, the instant Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed in limine as being time barred.