Pakistan Case Law
1983 SCMR 1239

ALI MUHAMMAD AND Another vs FAZAL HUSSAIN AND Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1983 SCMR 1239
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions Nos. 37 and 798 of 1980 C. P. No. 37 of 1980
Date1983-05-06
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah
Authored byNasim Hasan Shah
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns two petitions challenging the dismissal of applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, could be invoked to condone delays in appeals filed under the special limitation period prescribed by the Ordinance, which differs from the period provided in the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court held that because the special law (the Ordinance) provides a specific limitation period of 30 days for appeals to the High Court, which conflicts with the general period of 90 days under the Limitation Act, 1908, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is excluded by operation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908. Consequently, the Court affirmed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 cannot be applied to extend the time for filing such appeals, and the High Court correctly dismissed the applications for condonation of delay.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to appeals filed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 when a special law prescribes a different period of limitation?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 15(4), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959
  • Article 156, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 5, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 4, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 9, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 10, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 11, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 12, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 13, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 14, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 15, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 16, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 17, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 18, Limitation Act, 1908
  • Section 22, Limitation Act, 1908
limitationcondonation of delayspecial lawurban rent restrictionstatutory interpretationappellate jurisdiction

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This order will dispose of the above two petitions, as the question of law falling for determination in both the matters in the same.

2. We do not find any force in these petitions. The time allowed for an appeal under subsection (4) of section 15 to the High Court, under the Ordinance, is 30 days, whereas under Article 156 of the Limitation Act it is 90 days. The time allowed for filing the appeal by the special law i.e., West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 being different from that given in the Limitation Act, Section 5 stands excluded by virtue of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which permits the application of only, sections 4, 9 to 18 and 22 in such situations. The same view has also been taken by us in Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst. Mumtaz (PLD1982 SC 88). The High Court, therefore, rightly dismissed the applications for condonation of delay invoking the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. The upshot is that no ground for interference in the orders passed by the High Court has been made out. Hence both these petitions must fail and are hereby dismissed.

4. The interim order of stay, dated 21-6-1980 passed in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 798 of 1980, accordingly, also stands vacated.

5. M. Z. M. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

Cited by 47 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.