Pakistan Case Law
1987 SCMR 2036

Mst. RASUL BIB I vs Mst. REHMAT BIBI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1987 SCMR 2036
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 785 of 1980 R.S.A. No. 902 of 1965
Date1987-07-21
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, Javid Iqbal, and Saad Saood Jan
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 comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court, which allowed a second appeal filed by the respondent on the ground of limitation. The core legal question addressed is whether the petitioner's suit was barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, having been filed approximately 19 years after the cause of action accrued. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court was unexceptionable and squarely covered by precedent, affirming that the suit was indeed time-barred. The key principle laid down is that a suit governed by a six-year limitation period cannot be maintained nearly two decades after the accrual of the cause of action.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a suit filed nineteen years after the accrual of the cause of action is barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a second appeal be validly decided on the sole ground of limitation when the suit is filed beyond the prescribed statutory period?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 120, Limitation Act 1908
limitationsecond appealcause of actiontime-barred suitpetition for leave to appeal

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The High Court allowed the Second Appeal (R.S.A.No.902 of 1965) filed by Mst. Rehmat Bibi (respondent herein) on the ground of limitation observing that while the cause of, action accrued in favour of the petitioner herein on 12-10-1942 she) had filed the suit on 2-6-1961 i.e. Some 19 years later although she had only six years under Article 120 of the Limitation Act within which the suit could have been filed. By this petition for leave the above order of the High Court has been challenged.

2. There is no force in this petition. The view taken by the High Court is based on the decision of this Court in Zil Muhammad, v. Mst. Hayat Bibi (1971 SCMR 514). No ground for interference is made out.

3. Dismissed.

Cited by 2 cases

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