Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD HUSSAIN through Legal Heirs Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB
This matter arises from four separate review petitions filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 10-12-1992. The primary ground urged for review was that having concluded that the law invoked by the petitioners was unexceptionable for claiming relief, the relief ought not to have been denied. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court observed that the reasoning in the original judgment correctly applied established legal principles to the facts, specifically noting that the plaintiff had never remained in possession between 1946 and December 1977, remained completely ignorant of ownership during this extended period, and that the limitation period for filing the suit had expired long before in 1963. The Court held that there is no principle of law under which the expiry of the full available period of limitation can lead to a fresh revival of a cause of action based on a subsequent date of knowledge, attornment of tenants, or obtaining of possession. Finding no error or legal infirmity in the conclusion reached, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions.
- Does the expiry of the full available period of limitation permit the revival of a cause of action afresh from the date of knowledge?
- Can a plaintiff claim a fresh cause of action and maintain a suit within limitation when lacking possession over a property for a prolonged period exceeding the statutory limitation?
- Does obtaining possession or attornment of tenants revive a limitation period that has already expired?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Four separate review petitions have been moved against our judgment dated 10-12-1992.
2.The main ground taken up for seeking review of the judgment is that once the Court came to the conclusion as it did in paragraph 19 of the judgment that the law invoked by the petitioners was unexceptionable for claiming relief in the suit, the same should not have been denied to them.
3.After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we find that in applying the accepted principle of law to the facts of the case as discussed in the same paragraph 19, we had found as hereunder:--
"On his own showing having never remained in possession during period 1946 to December, 1977, having remained completely ignorant of his ownership during this period, the property having remained in possession of others who claimed it in their own right, could the plaintiff on such pleading claim a case of action since December, 1977 and base a suit on it as within limitation. None of the cases cited shows such an absonce of possession over such a long period. Taking the maximum from the plaint (7 years of age in 1946) and out of the law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents Kasam Molla v. Fajel Shek and others (PLD 1952 Dacca 347) the period of limitation for any suit in respect of this property expired in 1963. There is no principle known to law whereunder on expiry of full available period of limitation revival of cause of action afresh and running of the limitation period over again could take place either from the date of knowledge or the attornment of the tenants or on obtaining of possession."
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the conclusion so reached is open to question on the legal plane.
5.No case for review is made out. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Shafiur Rahman2,457 judgments
- Muhammad Afzal Lone787 judgments