Summary: Background: The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation No. 47 dated 20.11.1966 concerning a land dispute. They claimed that the land was given to the respondents' fathers for cultivation during the Dogra Regime, which they only became aware of in February 2018. An application for a temporary injunction was filed, and a status quo order was issued, which was later vacated by the trial court on 17.03.2021. The petitioners' appeal to the District Judge Kotli was dismissed on 30.09.2021, leading to the filing of this revision petition. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners complied with the mandatory requirement of attaching the necessary documents with the revision petition as per Section 115 (1) CPC. 2- Whether the trial court and appellate court correctly rejected the petitioners' application for a temporary injunction and declared the suit as time-barred. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the petitioners did not comply with the mandatory requirement of attaching the necessary documents with the revision petition as per Section 115 (1) CPC. This failure was considered a fatal defect, sufficient for the dismissal of the revision petition. The court noted that the basic ingredients necessary for the issuance of a status quo order were not found in the petitioners' suit. Both the trial court and the appellate court acted within their jurisdiction and did not commit any material irregularities. As a result, the revision petition was dismissed due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and the failure to establish the necessary grounds for the issuance of a status quo order. ----Citations/Precedents: Province of Pakistan v. Ikram-ul-Haq [1986 SCMR 1994] M. Arshad Sultan v. PM of Pakistan [PLD 1996 SC 77] Abdul Haq Khan v. Azad Govt. [2016 SCR 51] Ghiasul Haq v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir [PLD 1980 SC (AJ&K) 5] Azad Government v. Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan [2020 SCR 591] Jammu & Kashmir Tehrik Ammal Party v. Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir [PLD 1985 AJ&K 95] PLD 1995 Pes 135 1987 CLC 2337 1995 MLD 1149 2018 CLC 814 2009 CLC 940 SC AJ&K PLD 1986 SC 65 PLD 1982 SC 6 PLD 1986 AJ&K 228

Summary: Background: The case involves a dispute over land ownership and specific performance of an agreement to sell. The parties had conflicting claims based on an alleged oral sale in 1969 and a subsequent agreement to sell in 1982. Litigation ensued, including suits for adverse possession and possession based on ownership, leading to multiple appeals. ----Issues: 1- Whether the suit for specific performance of the 1982 agreement to sell was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908. 2- Whether the evidence presented sufficiently proved the existence and terms of the 1982 agreement to sell. 3- Whether procedural permissions granted during earlier litigation phases affected the limitation period for filing the suit. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court held that: The suit for specific performance was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as the timeline for filing the suit had expired. There were inconsistencies in the evidence presented regarding the terms and execution of the 1982 agreement to sell. Procedural permissions granted during earlier litigation did not extend the limitation period beyond what was stipulated under the law. ----Citations/Precedents: Article 113, Limitation Act, 1908

Summary: [The limitation period of 30 days provided under Section 28(4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 runs from date of knowledge of the defect or fault in the product or service. During this time, the consumer has to first send a written notice to the manufacturer or service provider under Section 28(1) of the Act and provide 15 days to respond to the same, as required under Section 28(2) of the Act. Where the defects raised are of technical nature and are denied by the manufacturer or the service provider, the onus to bring expert evidence on record to prove such defects is on the consumer. The Consumer Court also has to satisfy itself that sufficient expert evidence is available to ascertain if such defects exist] The appellant sold a Suzuki Swift vehicle to the respondent, but the respondent discovered certain defects in the vehicle and filed a claim under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. The claim was granted, ordering the appellant to refund the price of the vehicle and pay compensation/litigation costs. The appellant appealed to the High Court, but their appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the respondent's evidence was based on his own observations and lacked specific allegations of defects. The appellant also raised issues of limitation, claiming that the claim was filed beyond the allowed time period. The appellant further argued that no expert evidence was presented to prove the alleged defects in the vehicle. After considering the arguments and examining the record, the Supreme Court found that the respondent had failed to plead specific defects in the vehicle and did not provide expert evidence to support his claims. The Court also noted that the alleged admissions by the appellant and its representative were not binding and did not establish the existence of defects. Additionally, the Court addressed the issue of limitation and discussed conflicting judgments on when the limitation period begins under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the judgments of the lower courts, which relied on the supposed admissions and failed to consider the lack of evidence and defects in the pleadings, were not sustainable. The Court settled the question of law regarding the commencement of the limitation period and concluded that the respondent's claim was barred by limitation. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the lower courts.

Summary: The limitation period of 30 days provided under Section 28(4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 runs from date of knowledge of the defect or fault in the product or service. During this time, the consumer has to first send a written notice to the manufacturer or service provider under Section 28(1) of the Act and provide 15 days to respond to the same, as required under Section 28(2) of the Act. Where the defects raised are of technical nature and are denied by the manufacturer or the service provider, the onus to bring expert evidence on record to prove such defects is on the consumer. The Consumer Court also has to satisfy itself that sufficient expert evidence is available to ascertain if such defects exist. --- Facts:Respondent No.1 (Faisal Jameel Butt) purchased a Suzuki Swift (2010 model) from appellant (Pak Suzuki Motors) through respondent No.2 (a car dealer) for Rs. 1,049,000. After discovering defects, respondent No.1 issued legal notices and filed a claim under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, resulting in a Consumer Court decision for a refund plus compensation. The appellant's appeal to the High Court was dismissed, leading to this Supreme Court appeal.---Procedural History:The appellant challenged the Consumer Court's decision in the High Court, which upheld the decision. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal based on the appellant's contentions regarding evidence, defect allegations, and procedural issues such as limitation.---Issue:Whether the defects claimed by respondent No.1 were adequately proven and whether the claim was barred by limitation under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005.---Holding:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and dismissed respondent No.1's claim.----Reasoning:The Court found that respondent No.1's claims about the vehicle's defects were not adequately pleaded or proven. The defects were only mentioned in an affidavit, not in the initial legal notice or claim, violating the principle that evidence must align with pleadings. Furthermore, no expert evidence was presented to substantiate the alleged defects, which were technical and required specialized assessment.The Court also clarified the commencement of the limitation period for filing a claim under the Act, stating it begins when the consumer becomes aware of the defect, not from the response time to a notice issued to the manufacturer/service provider. Respondent No.1's claim was deemed time-barred as it was filed well beyond the statutory 30-day period after discovering the defects, without a proper application for condonation of delay.---Comments:This judgment emphasizes the importance of precise pleadings and the necessity of substantiating claims with relevant evidence, especially in technical matters requiring expert assessment. It also clarifies the procedural aspects of consumer protection claims, particularly regarding the limitation period, underscoring the need for timely action by consumers in filing claims.

Summary: Concurrent findings of the Courts below were reversed to decree the suit of the Petitioners seeking rectification of the Sale Deed; suit was within the period of limitation, the execution of the Sale Deed was proved in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and the fact of minority of two Respondents was not fatal as their interest was adequately safeguarded especially when they failed to challenge the Sale Deed within three years after ceasing of disability in terms of Sections 6 and 8 read with Article 91 to the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Summary: Background: In 2016, the respondents filed a suit for the recovery of dower and maintenance allowance against the petitioners. The respondents claimed that Naeem Akhtar was married to the petitioners' father in 2001, and her dower of Rs.50,000 and ten tolas of gold remained unpaid. The respondents further sought maintenance for the period from March 2010 (when the petitioners' father passed away) to January 2016, amounting to Rs.1.4 million, along with future maintenance. The petitioners contested the suit, and after trial, the trial court partially decreed the suit, awarding the dower to Naeem Akhtar but denying the claim for maintenance. On appeal, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, leading to this constitutional petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether the suit for recovery of dower and maintenance was barred by limitation. 2- Whether the lower courts correctly interpreted the law regarding the recovery of dower and maintenance. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Limitation Issue: The Lahore High Court held that the suit filed by the respondents was time-barred under Articles 103 and 104 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The dower claims must be filed within three years of the marriage dissolution by death or divorce. Since the suit was filed six years after the death of the petitioners' father, it was clearly beyond the statutory limitation period. Dower Payment Evidence: The court scrutinized the contents of the Nikahnama (Exhibit P4), which indicated that the ten tolas of gold ornaments were in the possession of Naeem Akhtar at the time of marriage. Furthermore, the court noted that Naeem Akhtar had not claimed her dower at the time of inheritance proceedings after the death of her husband. This silence for six years indicated that the dower had likely been paid during her husband's lifetime. Legal Position on Debts: The court reiterated the legal position that while a claim for a debt, such as unpaid dower, may become barred by limitation, the debt itself does not extinguish. However, in this case, the court found that Naeem Akhtar had failed to prove that the dower remained unpaid. Court’s Ruling: The court concluded that both the trial court and the appellate court failed to apply the law correctly. As a result, the constitutional petition was allowed, the lower courts' judgments were set aside, and the respondents' suit was dismissed on the grounds of limitation and lack of merit. -----Citations/Precedents: Syed Muhammad vs. Mst. Zeenat (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 128) Muhammad Mumtaz vs. Mst. Parveen Akhtar (1985 CLC 415) Outcome: The suit filed by the respondents was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside. The court found the claim for dower to be time-barred and without merit.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, Quetta (Execution Court) dated 16 April 2022. The petitioner had sought permission to pay the decretal amount of Rs. 20,000,000 in 36 equal monthly installments. The original suit involved a dishonored post-dated cheque issued by the petitioner as part payment for a property sold by the respondent. The Trial Court decreed the amount in favor of the respondent, and the petitioner’s appeal to the High Court was dismissed. During the execution of the decree, the petitioner applied for installment payments, which was also dismissed. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner's application for payment of the decretal amount in installments was filed within the period of limitation under Article 175 of the Limitation Act, 1908. -----2- Whether the Execution Court could grant installment payments without the consent of the decree holder under Order XX, Rule 11 of CPC. -----3- Whether the pending Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court had any bearing on the execution of the decree. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by the High Court. The court found that: The petitioner's application for payment by installments was barred by limitation as it was filed more than six months after the decree. Under Article 175 of the Limitation Act, such applications must be filed within six months of the decree. Under Order XX, Rule 11(2), CPC, an Execution Court cannot order payment by installments without the consent of the decree holder, which was not given in this case. The mere filing of a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court does not automatically stay the execution of the decree. The court upheld the decision of the Execution Court and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner for filing the baseless Civil Revision Petition. -----Citations/Precedents: Article 175, Limitation Act, 1908 Order XX, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Mst. Shaheda and 2 others v. Imam-ud-Din (PLD 1978 Karachi 472) Feroz Ahmed Khan v. Fasihullah Sheikh (2007 YLR 2377) Mrs. Farida Hanif Motiwala v. Qais Mansoor Sheikh (2000 CLC 1328) Mehar Sultan Jung v. Qurban Hussain (1972 SCMR 73)

Summary: PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 21 Present Ch Muhammad Masood Jahangir J MIRZA MUSHTAQ - - Petitioner versus ATHAR RASUL and 11 others - - Respondents CR No 24602 of 2019 decided on 1292022 Specific Relief Act 1877 (I of 1877) - - - - - - Ss 9 39 42 - - Limitation Act 1908 S 9 - - Suit for declaration was withdrawn - - Second suit for cancellation of GPA and sale - deed was also withdrawn - - Third suit for cancellation of GPA and sale - deed and possession was filed - - Rejection of suit on point of limitation - - Transfer of property by attorney - - Possession was also delivered - - Challenge to - - Concurrent orders - - After withdrawal of first suit limitation is to be reckoned from date of filing of earlier proceedings - - Mere withdrawal of previous suit to extent of parties and institution of present suit even with permission of Court neither provided fresh cause of action nor extended point of limitation - - In case of withdrawal of first suit plaintiff is bound by law of limitation to proceed with his subsequent suit as if first one was never filed - - Institution of declaratory suit in hand aiming cancellation of GPA as well as subsequent Sale - Deeds was certainly beyond provided limitation [Para 3] A B D 2002 SCMR 144 2011 SCMR 345 PLD 2015 SC 212 Limitation Act 1908 (IX of 1908) - - - - - - Art 120 - - Limitation - - Limitation to file suit for declaration in terms of Article 120 of Limitation Act1908 is six years whilst to sue for cancellation of instrument per Article 91 of Act is three years [Para 3] C Limitation - - - - - - It is an established principle by now that law of limitation is not merely a technicality rather said statute furnishes regularity to human affairs matters and dealings - - There is also no cavil that law helps vigilant and not indolent whereas after expiry of prescribed limitation a vested right always accrued in favour of rivalry [Para 4] E 1974 SCMR 223 1998 SCMR 307 Limitation - - - - - - Law of Limitation - - A person is required to approach Court with due diligence without dilatoriness negligence and within time provided by law as against choosing his own time for purpose of bringing forth a legal action at his own whimdesire [Para 4] F Ms Jahangir A Jhoja and Iftikhar Ahmed Chohan Advocates for Petitioner Mr Abdul Hameed Kalu Advocate for Respondent No 1 Mr Zahid Aziz Bhutta Advocate for Respondents No 5 Mr Pervaiz Shaukat Advocate for Respondent No 6 Proceeded against ex parte on 15062021 for Respondents No 248 to 10 Mr M Azhar Siddique Advocate for Respondent No 12 Mr Naveed Aslam Addl AG for Respondents No 11Judgement Result:Civil Revision dismissed

Summary: Facts:The appellants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming a 3/8th share in an undivided agricultural property. They sought to set aside a mutation (Mutation No. 260 dated 29.12.1981) as being fraudulent, collusive, and ineffective regarding their rights. The mutation allegedly transferred the property to the respondents through a gift by Mst. Ghausan, which the appellants contested, claiming it was done without proper offer, acceptance, or transfer of possession, and was attested through forgery and collusion with the Revenue Department.----Procedural History:The Trial Court and the Appellate Court ruled in favor of the appellants, but their decision was overturned by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the appellants' suit. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.----Issues:Whether the Mutation No. 260 was fraudulently attested and if it should be set aside.Whether the appellants have the locus standi to challenge the mutation after the death of Mst. Ghausan.Whether the suit filed by the appellants was barred by limitation.Holding:The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal, affirming the Lahore High Court's judgment.----Rationale:The Supreme Court found that the High Court had thoroughly scrutinized the evidence and correctly concluded that the mutation was executed in accordance with the law. The witnesses produced by the respondents supported the stance that the mutation was executed with the appearance of Mst. Ghausan before the Revenue Officer. The Court noted that Mst. Ghausan had not challenged the mutation during her lifetime, which weakened the appellants' position. Furthermore, the Court observed that the suit was filed with significant delay, making it barred by limitation.---Judgment:The Civil Appeal was dismissed, upholding the Lahore High Court's judgment that dismissed the appellants' suit. ''(1) If the concurrent findings are based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, it cannot be treated so sacrosanct or sanctified. (2) The revisional jurisdiction is pre-eminently corrective and supervisory in nature. (3) The Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC can even exercise its suo motu jurisdiction to correct any jurisdictive errors to ensure safe administration of justice.''

Summary: It has repeatedly been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that insofar as limitation is concerned, the government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant. In fact, the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its sources are much larger than those possessed by the ordinary litigants.The claim of the plaintiff was admitted by the defendants not only in the written statement but also as the witness against the plaintiff when entered in the witness box. It is pertinent to mention that suit was filed on 10.02.2017 and was decreed on 24.10.2017 against which the appeal was filed on 28.04.2018 and was decided on 13.03.2023 and thereafter this petition was filed on 31stMarch 2023 despite the clear admission of the defendants in their written statement and in term of Order XII rule 1 (Admissions) the Court was required to decide the suit in term of Order XII or XV rule 1 C.P.C, keeping in view that the parties were not at issues and similarly, the petitioners were required to have a look on their pleadings and the statement of their witness before filing of appeal and this petition.