Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FAZAL RAHMAN VS Respondent: RAHIM GUL AND Oherss
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Haleem, Durab Patel Title: FAZAL RAHMAN vs RAHIM GUL AND Oherss Case No.: Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 66-P of 1979 Date of Judgment:1981-02-08 Reported As: 1981 SCMR 1258 Result: Leave granted
Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The respondents filed a suit against the peti--tioner for a declaration that they were the owners in possession of 1/2 share in certain Khasra numbers and mortgages in possession of 1/4th share in other Khasra numbers which was decreed by the Civil Judge, Second Class, Nowshera, on 23rd of April, 1968, to the extent that they were granted the declaration in regard to a 1/2 share in the entire suit land. The other relief was refused. On appeal by the respondents, the Additional District Judge, Peshawar, modified the decree by judgment dated 29th of March, 1968, and held them to be the owners in possession of the land mentioned in Mad `B' but rejected their prayer in regard to the land in Mad. `A'. The petitioner herein filed a Regular Second Appeal in the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, against this judgment which was dismissed as barred by three days. 2. In seeking leave in appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner con--tends that the time, for the purpose of limitation, was computed from the date on which the copies of the judgment and the decree were made ready, that is 27th of June, 1968, but if it was computed from the date on which it was delivered, that is 12th of July, 1968, the appeal would have been in time. In contending so the learned counsel stated that from the testimony of the witnesses examined at the stage of the appeal it was clear that no notice was A served on the petitioner by the copying agency in regard the copies having been made ready nor any specific date was given as to when the copies would be ready for collection ; and, therefore, in its absence, the petitioner would not have known about it and further that he should not be burdened with its knowledge. This submission requires consideration.
---
## Page 2
3. Accordingly, we would grant leave to appeal to the petitioner. Security for costs Rs.2,500. In the meantime the respondents are directed not to alienate the land with out the permission of this Court. The appeal, arising out of this petition, should be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any.