SAKEENA BEGUM (widow) vs ABDUL KHALIQ S — 2025 PLD 25 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

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

SAKEENA BEGUM (widow) VS ABDUL KHALIQ S. 3---Gift deed, assailing of---Limitation---Gift deed impugned in the suit was a registered instrument and definitely limitation runs from the date of registration of the same---Gift deed was registered/attested in 1987 while the suit against the same was brought in 2003, with an inordinate delay of 16 years---Thus, limitation in such cases went to the roots of the case and was purely a question of law rightly dealt with by the Courts below---Time barred lis on the very face of the case could not be entertained in view of S. 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Under S. 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it is the bounden duty of every Court of law to take notice of question of limitation---Suit, appeal or application filed after the period of limitation is to be dismissed---Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1908, is couched in a mandatory form which empowers the Court before whom a lis is brought to dismiss the same if it is found that the same has not been brought before the Court within the time prescribed by the First Sched. of the Limitation Act, 1908---Appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 25 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case SAKEENA BEGUM (widow) VS ABDUL KHALIQ Question of limitation not set up as a defence---Legislative intent provides a clear indication that it is not left to the parties to take or not take the objection that the suit, appeal or application is outside the time limit fixed by law---Court must dismiss the suit, appeal or application, if it has not been made timely---Court must dismiss the lis which is filed outside the time limit prescribed by law. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 25 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case SAKEENA BEGUM (widow) VS ABDUL KHALIQ S. 3---Limitation, question of---Doctrine of preponderance of probabilities of evidence---Scope---Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is a mandatory provision of law and must be construed as per its plain language---Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1908, is a mandatory codal provision and cannot be overlooked and brushed aside---Where limitation is purely question of law then Court in such like matter is obliged to independently advert to the question of limitation and to determine the same---It is not merely a formality but it is couched in a way to be observed as being of mandatory nature; it takes breath from the analogy that lapse of time creates rights in favour of other party and burdens the party which fails to act within time---Resultantly such right becomes unenforceable---Appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 25 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case SAKEENA BEGUM (widow) VS ABDUL KHALIQ S. 100---Concurrent findings of facts, assailing of---General allegations---Second appeal---Scope---Concurrent findings of fact could not be disturbed unless and until it is specifically pointed out by the appellants (litigant party), that which part of evidence, oral or documentary, or which evidence as a whole was misread and non-read---A general allegation of misreading or non-reading of evidence would not render the concurrent findings of fact open to challenge---It is necessary for the party to specifically point out the witnesses whose statements were misread---Concurrent findings of fact will not be disturbed in second appeal even if the Court disagrees with that findings on its own view of the evidence---Mere erroneous findings will not suffice to reverse the same when concurrence of two Courts is found, that too, in the course of appraisal of the evidence.

SAKEENA BEGUM (widow) vs ABDUL KHALIQ S — 2025 PLD 25 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD