Pakistan Case Law
1984 SCMR 1171

Mst. RIAZ BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1984 SCMR 1171
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 596 of 1982 Civil Revision No, 1646 of 1981
Date1984-05-08
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah
Authored byNasim Hasan Shah
ResultLeave granted
Summary

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. The core legal question is whether the time spent in erroneously prosecuting an incompetent application for setting aside a decree can be excluded by applying section 14 of the Limitation Act. The High Court had held, relying on precedent, that the time spent bona fide could be excluded, whereas the Supreme Court noted that its own previous judgment in Shah Muhammad v. Ghulam appeared to have expressed a contrary view. Recognizing the question as one of law and of general public importance, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, directed security, dispensed with the preparation of a new paper book, and ordered a stay of proceedings before the lower appellate court.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the time spent in erroneously prosecuting an incompetent application for setting aside a decree be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act?
  • Whether time spent bona fide in proceedings that were legally incompetent qualifies for exclusion of limitation period?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 14, Limitation Act 1908
limitationexclusion of timesetting aside decreeleave to appealbona fide prosecution

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The question that arose in this case is whether the time spent in erroneously prosecuting an application for setting aside a decree, as it was not competent, can be excluded by the application of section 14 of the Limitation Act.

2. ' The learned Judge in the High Court relying upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in General Secretary, P. W. R. Union (Workshop), Lahore v. The Registrar, Trade Unions and another (1) has held that the time which was thus spent, having been spent bona fide could be excluded but in the case of Shah Muhammad v. Ghulam and another (2), this Court appears to have expressed a contrary view.

3. ' The question is one of law and of general public importance. We would, accordingly, grant leave to appeal.

4. ' Security in the sum of Rs, 1,000.

5. ' The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any.

6. ' Further, proceedings- before the learned Appellate Court shall-remain stayed meanwhile. {{FOOT NOTE}} PLD 1969 Lah.

7. 1080. (2) PLD 1970 SC 196 {{FOOT NOTE}}

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