Citation Name: 2025 PLD 264 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mrs. SEEMA TARIQ KHAN vs NAJAMUL SEHR S

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

Citation Name: 2025 PLD 264 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mrs. SEEMA TARIQ KHAN VS NAJAMUL SEHR SOOMRO S. 114 & O. XLVII, R. 1---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.14---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3---Intra Court Appeal---Review---Doctrine of election---Applicability---Plea of wrong forum---Extending of period of limitation---Scope---Appellants were aggrieved of dismissal of their application filed under O. XLVII, R. 1, C.P.C. seeking review of basic order---Appellants assailed the order passed in review and also the basic order to be reviewed---Held, that principles of doctrine of election denote that election to commence and follow available course, from concurrent avenues, vests with suitor---Once an option is exercised then the suitor is precluded from re-agitating the same lis in other realms of competent jurisdiction---Appeal, to the extent of order against which review was sought was time barred and could not be maintained---Period spent in pursuing review was not liable to be excluded while reckoning period of limitation for assailing basic or original order as in essence the intent was to call in question the correctness and validity of initial order of which the review was sought which had attained finality creating valuable rights in favor of the other party which could not be disturbed so lightly---Appeal against order refusing a review was in fact seeking vacation of previous order which by efflux of time had become final, whereas, refusal to review could not give a fresh period of limitation---Not availing remedy of appeal as provided under law against a basic order and instead prosecuting a review before same Court, did not allow appellants to benefit from S. 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 as the time spent could not be excluded in computing period of limitation---Appellant only intended to drag the matter; whereas, offer of respondent already stood accepted way back in year, 2021 and appellant intended to avail benefit of increase in price---High Court declined to interfere in basic order as well as order dismissing review---Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 PLD 264 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mrs. SEEMA TARIQ KHAN vs NAJAMUL SEHR SOOMRO S — 2025 PLD 264 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD