SADIQ HUSSAIN And Others vs GHULAM RASOOL
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment that refused to entertain a plea of limitation raised by the petitioners. The petitioners had initially filed a suit for possession, which was dismissed by the trial court upon finding that the respondent was the legitimate heir of the deceased and that the suit was filed maliciously to defame him. Consequently, the respondent successfully sued for damages for defamation. In the subsequent proceedings, the petitioners failed to challenge the findings on the merits but attempted to raise the issue of limitation for the first time before the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a plea of limitation cannot be raised for the first time at a belated stage if it was not pleaded in the written statement or agitated during the earlier proceedings. The Court held that the High Court was justified in refusing to consider the point, as the petitioners were precluded from introducing new legal arguments that were not part of the original pleadings or trial record.
- Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time before the High Court if it was not pleaded in the written statement or raised during the trial proceedings?
- Is a party entitled to introduce a new legal argument at the appellate stage that was not part of the original pleadings?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--In this petition leave is sought on the ground that the High Court erroneously refused to allow the petitioners to raise the question of limitation which was the only point urged at the hearing. The High Court held that as this point was not raised either in the written statement or at any stage of the proceedings, therefore, it was too late in the day to press it.
2. As will appear from the record, the petitioners had filed a suit for possession alleging that the respondent was not the real son of Mauls Bakhsh and that they were the heirs who inherited his property. The trial Court held that the respondent was the real son of Maula Bakhsh, and that the petitioners had brought a false suit against him in order to defame and deprive him of his legal rights. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit and awarded special costs of Rs.1,000 to the respondent. In the suit, subsequently filed for damages, the petitioners did not lead any evidence and the trial Court held that it was a clear-cut case of defamation, and, accordingly, awarded damages of Rs.25,000. The appeal failed and in the revision the petitioners did not question the conclusion on merits.
3. On this view of the matter, when the question of limitation was not raised to non-suit the respondent, it is too late in the day to raise this plea and the High Court was justified in refusing to consider it on the ground stated.
4. Accordingly, we find no substance in this petition and dismiss it.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mubarak Masih vs Muhammad Yaqoob & others 2019 CLC 321, 2018 SHC 667
- Mst. Mumtaz Jehan & 5 others vs Govt. of Sindh through Settlement 2004 C.L.R. 922
- PERVAIZ IRSHAD vs RIAZ AHMAD 1989 CLC 978