PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1437 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL NAFAY vs GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN C&W DEPARTMENT through Superintending Engineering Project Circle Ss — 2024 CLC 1437 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2024 CLC 1437 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
CLC
Parties
Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1437 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL NAFAY vs GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN C&W DEPARTMENT through Superintending Engineering Project Circle Ss
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 115---S; Limitation Act (IX of 1908); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908); Limitation Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1437 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL NAFAY VS GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN C&W DEPARTMENT through Superintending Engineering Project Circle Ss. 42 & 54---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.120---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 79 & 117---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for declaration and injunction---Revenue entries, correction of---Limitation---New documents---Petitioner / plaintiff claimed his ownership over suit property and had assailed mutations in question---Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit---Validity---Suit land was mutated in the name of a person in the year 1980 and petitioner / plaintiff alleged that he purchased property in year 1980 but did not bother to transfer the land to his name in revenue record---Petitioner / plaintiff filed suit for correction of revenue record in the year 1995---Limitation period provided under Art.120 of Limitation Act, 1908, for correction of mutation entries was six years---Relief which petitioner / plaintiff was entitled was subject to law of limitation---Every litigant is to be vigilant in claiming his / her right within the prescribed period of limitation---Petitioner / plaintiff was not vigilant to pursue his right---There was no evidence on record that petitioner / plaintiff was not in knowledge of mutation entries---Petitioner / plaintiff filed suit after fifteen years of alleged transaction, which suit was barred by time---Documents which were neither pleaded nor part of pleading could not be allowed to be introduced during revisional jurisdiction---High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below as petitioner / plaintiff failed to point out any illegality and irregularity---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English