SABIR HUSSAIN vs Mst — 2026 PLD 65 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

SABIR HUSSAIN VS Mst. HINA UROOJ Ss.8, 39, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.7---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5 & First Sched., Art. 152---Suit for declaration, cancellation, possession along with permanent injunction---Fraudulent sale of suit property by a family member---Absence of express prayer in the prayer clause---Effect---Moulding of relief by court---Granting of relief by court not specifically prayer for---Principle stated---Appeal barred by time---Condoning the delay in filing appeal---Sufficient case---Negligence of counsel alleged---Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, cancellation, possession, and permanent injunction concerning the suit property, alleging that the petitioner (plaintiff's cousin) unlawfully sold her property---She claimed that the petitioner fraudulently sold the suit property to respondent No.2---First Information Reports were filed, and the matter was brought to court, where the plaintiff sought cancellation of the sale deed and recovery of possession---The petitioner and respondent No.2 denied the allegations, asserting that the plaintiff had voluntarily sold the property and received the full sale consideration---Trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, which was upheld on appeal, leading to the filing of the present civil revision---Held: Despite the absence of an express prayer, respondent No.1/plaintiff successfully established her claim to the suit property during the course of evidence---Relief granted by the Trial Court was well within contemplation of O.VII, R.7, C.P.C., therefore, decree passed by the Trial Court did not suffer from any illegality as it aligned with both the law and principles of natural justice---Moreover, appeal filed by the petitioner was also barred by time as no sufficient cause was substantiated to make a case for condonation of delay as negligence of counsel was held not to be a sufficient cause and the petitioner had to remain vigilant in pursuing his case---Furthermore, petitioner failed to discharge the burden of explaining the delay for each and every day---Civil revision lacked both factual and legal merit and was dismissed, in circumstances.

SABIR HUSSAIN vs Mst — 2026 PLD 65 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD