Preamble Citations PDF

10/7/2018 Pakistan Law Site
Caselaw Search
Statutes Search
Courtwise Search
Citation Search
Advance Search
Search in Staute -- Limitation Act 1908-PREAMBLE 

Enter Keyword Enter Court All Search
 Back
Limitation Act 1908-PREAMBLE
Your Search returned total 151 records from 0 - 50
Citation Name: 2018 CLC 1195 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 
BAHADAR ALI VS DARAY KHAN
Preamble---When time was permitted for filing a suit under Limitation Act, 1908, that did not mean that plaintiff must wait till the last day of limitation to file the
suit---Period of limitation was permissive one and its use as a device to get benefit from the transaction by filing and lodging any suit or claim in the end of
permissive period of limitation would speak against the plaintiff if no valid reason was advanced.
Head Notes Case Description
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check 1/48
Citation Name: 2017 YLR 794 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 
MUHAMMAD SHARIF (deceased) VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector Layyah
Preamble---Object---Object of limitation was to help the vigilant and not the indolent.
Citation Name: 2016 PLD 872 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD VS Mst. FAZAL BIBI
1988 SCMR 1354, 2003 YLR 1837, 2007 SCMR 1446, 2010 PLC (Labour) 104, PLD 2003 SC 628,
Limitation Act 1908--3 , Limitation Act 1908--5 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
Ss. 3 & 5 & Preamble---Law of limitation, interpretation of---Salient features of interpretation of the law of limitation listed.
GHULAM QADIR VS Sh. ABDUL WADOOD
Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
Preamble---Limitation was a part of positive law, which has to be construed and applied as per the settled principles; it had to be given due effect as per the
mandate of law---Limitation was not a mere technicality of form.
Citation Name: 2016 YLRN 77 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case 
ABDUL WAHAB VS ABIDULLAH
Preamble---Scope---Law of limitation would provide an element of certainty in the conduct of human affairs---Public interest required an end to litigation---Persons
who wished to dispute any fact or claim any right must do the same within the time described under the law otherwise his rights if any would be forfeited as
penalty for such neglect---Law required that a person must come to court and take the course of legal remedy with due diligence and he should be more
conscious when he had challenged the rights of other person on the ground that he was stranger and not a co-sharer---Law of limitation had been made
applicable even to the claim of inheritance.
Citation Name: 2016 CLCN 93 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 
JAVAID IQBAL GHANI VS Malik ABDUL SHAFIQUE
Preamble---Object---Object and intention behind law of limitation was to govern codes and manners for providing relief where substantive rights were pressed in
the shape of litigation---Barrier of time limit was result and outcome of public policy which had restricted the time for bringing a claim before the court of law---
Litigation should be decided on merits and technicalities should be avoided in dispensation of justice but limitation had command of law prescribing time limit
within which a right could be exercised or enforced.
MUHAMMAD KHALIQ VS GUL AFZAL KHAN
Code of Civil Procedure 1908--114 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
S. 114 & O. XLVII---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble---Laws such as the law
relating to review or other laws such as the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, or the Limitation Act, 1908 etc. had a rationale---Such laws were always made for the
furtherance of the collective public good and if individuals suffered because of such laws, it was but a natural and logical consequence of protecting the larger
public good for the purpose of bringing an end to litigation particularly through review petitions, which were frivolous.
Dr. MUHAMMAD JAVAID SHAFI VS Syed RASHID ARSHAD
1999 SCMR 1245, 2010 SCMR 978, PLD 1964 SC 329, PLD 1975 SC 624, ✉
Contract Act 1872--17 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
Preamble---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 17---Limitation could not shield a transaction having no effect and existence on account of fraud and forgery.
Dr. MUHAMMAD JAVAID SHAFI VS Syed RASHID ARSHAD
Limitation Act 1908--3 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
S. 3 & Preamble---Law of limitation---Object, scope and significance.
Citation Name: 2014 MLD 1135 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case 
KHAN SHAHZADA VS ALLIED BANK LTD.
Preamble---Object of law of limitation---Law of limitation could not be considered merely a formality but the same was required to be observed and taken into
consideration being mandatory in nature---Purpose of law of limitation was to help the vigilant and not the indolent and helping hand could not be extended to a
litigant having gone into deep slumber, on having become forgetful of his rights.
Citation Name: 2014 CLC 1166 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case 
KARAM CNG through Dildar VS CNGC, SWABI
Preamble---Object and scope of Limitation Act, 1908---Law of limitation could not be considered merely a formality but the same was required to be observed and
taken into consideration being mandatory in nature---Purpose of law of limitation was to help the vigilant and not the indolent---Helping hand might not be
extended to a litigant having gone into deep slumber, on having become forgetful of his rights.

✉
Citation Name: 2014 PLD 34 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
BUILDING STORE VS MUHAMMAD HANIF
Preamble---Rules of interpretation of Limitation Act, 1908.
Citation Name: 2013 SCMR 238 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 
TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI VS ORGANIZATION OF KARACHI PORT TRUST WORKERS
Claim barred by limitation--Term , Constitutional petition--TERM , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Limitation period of---Scope---Claim barred by limitation---Relief for such claim sought in
constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 could not be stricto sensu made applicable to the claims set forth in the
constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, but if the claim on the face of it was barred by the law of limitation in relation to the suit, the relief should be refused to
the writ petitioner on the rule of laches and past and closed transaction.
Citation Name: 2013 YLR 1523 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case 
MUSLIM GUL VS MIR BADSHAH
Preamble---Nature and purpose of law of limitation---Law of limitation, could not be considered merely formality, but same was required to be observed; and
taken into consideration being mandatory in nature---Purpose of law of limitation was to help the vigilant, and not the indolent---Helping hand could not be
extended to a litigant having gone into deep slumber, on having become forgetful of his rights---Concerned person, had to be made aware of the invasion of his
interests, and awareness had to be ascertained as a matter of fact.
Citation Name: 2011 PTD 2358 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, LEGAL DIVISION, MULTAN VS Lady Dr. MUSARRAT MUMTAZ, C/o D.H.Q. Hospital, D.G. Khan
✉
Income Tax Ordinance 2001--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
Preamble---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble---Provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 are applicable to proceedings under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
Citation Name: 2011 PTD 2358 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, LEGAL DIVISION, MULTAN VS Lady Dr. MUSARRAT MUMTAZ, C/o D.H.Q. Hospital, D.G. Khan
Preamble---Provisions of Limitation Act, 1908---Scope---Limitation once started running could not be stopped or suspended by any subsequent event---Such
provisions would be construed strictly in accordance with language of words used by legislature and applied without having any regard to equitable
considerations.
MUHAMMAD INAYAT VS Mst. SARDARAN BIBI
Preamble---Limitation was a matter of statute and provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 were mandatory but the question of limitation had to be decided according to
the circumstances of each and every case.
MUHAMMAD WALAYAT VS MEMBER JUDICIAL, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB
Condonation of delay--TERM , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
Condonation of delay---Principle---Delay of each and every day has to be explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS BAGH ALI
1997 SCMR 422, 2001 SCMR 286, 2004 SCMR 1630,
Preamble--- Significance of the Limitation Act, 1908---Law of limitation has significance of its own in prescribing time for instituting proceedings in judicial system.
Citation Name: 2010 MLD 68 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 
UMAR AHMAD VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BUREWALA, DISTRICT VEHARI
Preamble, Ss.3 & 5---Object of law of limitation---Object of law of limitation was to help the vigilant and not the indolent; and that the law of limitation was required
to be construed strictly, coupled with the maxim that each day of delay to be explained by the party concerned.
Citation Name: 2010 PLC 104 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
AL-KARAM TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Power of Attorney VS SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.4
Gilgit Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order 2009--13 , Limitation Act 1908--3 , Limitation Act 1908--5 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
Limitation--TERM ,
S. 84---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble, Ss.3 & 5---Limitation---Limitation would shut the door and bar the remedy---Statutes of limitation were statutes of
repose---It was in the interest of society and the community at large that after a certain lapse of time the citizens and the parties must be allowed ease of
relaxation of their vigils---However, since there could be serious risk of justice, it was necessary that provision be made to protect bona fide litigants---Such was
why S.84 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 made provisions of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applicable to proceedings and things to be done under said Act.
Citation Name: 2009 PLD 52 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LEASING LTD. through Authorised VS HAQ KNITWEAR (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive ✉
Preamble---Object and scope of Limitation Act, 1908---Structure of law is founded upon legal maxim, that delay defeats equity, time and tide wait for none and
law helps the vigilant not the indolent---Bar of limitation in the adversarial litigation creates valuable right in favour of other party---Principles.
Citation Name: 2009 CLC 262 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
Mrs. SAFIA SIDDIQ VS Haji FAZAL-UR-REHMAN
1980 CLC 1124, 2006 SCMR 783, PLD 1970 Kar. 295,
S. 149---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble---Condonation of delay to pay court-fee after expiry of period of limitation---Validity---Such condonation would
tantamount to destroy provisions of Limitation Act, 1908---Principles.
REHMAT DIN and others VS Mirza NASIR ABBAS
---Preamble---Object of Limitation Act, 1908 was to help vigilant and not indolent.
ATTA MUHAMMAD VS MAULA BAKHSH
---Preamble---Law of limitation---Object and scope---Public interest requires that there should be an end to litigation---Law of limitation provides an element of
certainty in the conduct of human affairs---Statutes of limitation and prescription are thus statues of peace and repose---In order to avoid difficulty and errors that
necessarily result from lapse of time, the presumption of coincidence of fact and right is rightly accepted as final after a certain number of years---Whoever
wishes to dispute such presumption, must do so within that period otherwise his rights, if any, will be forfeited as a penalty for such neglect---Law of limitation is a
law which is designed to impose quietus on legal dissensions and conflicts---Law requires that persons must come to court and take recourse to legal remedies
with due diligence.
Hafiz ABDUL KHALIQUE SOOMRO VS GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Karachi
1987 SCMR 1119, 2005 SCMR 126, PLD 1970 SC 1,
Code of Civil Procedure 1908--PREAMBLE , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
---Art. 199--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Preamble---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Nature and scope---
`Delay' or `laches' in filing constitutional petition dealing with civil rights---Impact---Limitation--Delay not an absolute bar---No law of limitation directly apply to the
institution of constitutional petition and its dismissal on ground of limitation---Considerations upon which Court can refuse to exercise its discretion, where the
petition is delayed, is not limitation but matters relating to conduct of parties and change in situation---Refusal to entertain belated causes is only a rule of
discretion, not of law---Constitutional petition dealing with civil rights being of civil nature, C.P.C. applies except where excluded and in such a situation the
provisions of C.P.C. are to be taken and construed together with the Limitation Act, 1908 as both the statutes are pari materia---Principles.
DESMOND VAZ VS KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY through Chief Controller of Buildings Civil Centre, Karachi
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
---Art. 199---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble---Constitutional petition---Law of limitation does not apply to the institution of Constitutional petition nor on its
dismissal on the ground of limitation.
Citation Name: 2005 CLC 1076 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case 

✉
Syed LAL HUSSAIN SHAH VS LAL MUHAMMAD
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974--42 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967--167 ,
--S. 167---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42--- Appeal to Supreme Court---
Applicability of Limitation Act, 1908 in revenue matters---Provisions of S.167 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 had unequivocally provided that in
computation of period for an appeal from or an application for the review or revision of an order under the said Act, Limitation thereof would be governed by
Limitation Act, 1908--There being no specific exclusion of any of provisions of Limitation Act, 1908, same would apply in its totality---Contention that Limitation
Act, 1908 would not apply in the matters arising under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, was repelled being incorrect.
Malik ABDUL KADIR VS ATIQUE ARMED
Limitation Act 1908--29 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 168 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--41 , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance
1979--21 ,
----Preamble, S.29 & Art. 168---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 41--Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, (XVII of 1979), S. 21---Limitation Act, 1908 was a general
law which had laid down general rules of limitation applicable to all cases dealt with by said Act---Special Law was Law applicable to a particular subject as
defined in S. 41 of P.P.C. and enacted for special cases which could also entertain special circumstances in conflict with general law laying down or applicable
generally to all oases with which general law deals---Three different words were mentioned in S.29 of Limitation Act, 1908; viz. "Suit", "Appeal" and "Application" -
--Said three words carried different meanings and connotations--
Citation Name: 2004 PLD 38 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case 
MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN VS Raja MUHAMMAD FARID KHAN
----Preamble, Ss.3, 5 & Art.113---Nature, scope and application of Limitation Act, 1908---Limitation Act, 1908 did not confer a right, but was only a regulatory
enactment which regulated the rights of the parties---Such regulatory provisions could not be allowed to extinguish vested right or curtailment of remedies unless
all the conditions prescribed for curtailment were fully complied with in letter and spirit--Benefit of doubt, if any, should be given to the party who had acquired
right of good consideration and not to one who was trying to back out from his commitment pocketing all the advantages and trying to shield himself behind the
regulatory provisions of the statute and trying to deprive the other from the right acquired by him.

✉
DUR MUHAMMAD VS ABDUL SATTAR
----Preamble---Limitation in adversary system of justice does create a right in favour of one out of the two parties therefore, onerous duty is cast upon the Courts
to construe- relevant provisions of law on the subject, strictly and refrain from recording factual findings on the question of limitation loosely.
GHULAM MUSTAFA KHAN VS ASHIQ HUSSAIN
----Preamble---Object of Limitation Act, 1908---Object of law of limitation was to regulate the Courts and manners for providing relief or remedy within a certain
regulated period by the Statute which governed the suit---If in the relevant Statute there was a legal vacuum not providing the manner as to how the statutory
period would be computed in fulfilling a statutory legal formality or obligation within the specific time, then it was always the wisdom under law to meet the legal
requirements under the general law which was co-related with the statute.
Citation Name: 2003 YLR 1837 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
Mrs. UNSIA BANG VS SHELL PAKISTAN LTD
----Preamble---Law of limitation, which is a statute of repose, is designed to quieten title and to bar stale and waterlogged disputes and is to be strictly complied
with---Courts cannot refrain from applying the law of limitation whenever it is applicable.
RIAZ-UR-REHMAN KHAN VS LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES, QUAID-E-AZAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, KARACHI
Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , ✉
Limitation Act 1908 ----Preamble & S.14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Preamble, Ss.13 & 10---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.55--.-Word "Court" as
occurring in S.14. Limitation Act, 1908, does not include "foreign Court" ---Principles.
MUHAMMAD HANIF VS KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Limitation Act 1908--6 , Limitation Act 1908--7 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 21 ,
----S. 1---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.6, 7 & First Sched. Art.21--Suit for damages---Limitation-.--Minor as well as major legal heirs of the deceased jointly filed
suit after period of limitation claiming benefit of Ss.6 & 7 of Limitation Act, 1908---Validity---Provisions of S.7 of Limitation Act taking away a valuable right given
under S.6 thereof had to be construed strictly---Valuable right had accrued to minor plaintiffs upon death of their father viz. to receive compensation as prayed for
in the suit, and the widow or major son of deceased could not give any discharge as regards such right---Section 7 of Limitation Act, thus would not apply to such
a case.
SAJJAD HUSSAIN VS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE
Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 113 ,
----S. 12---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Scheci., Art. 113---Suit for specific performance of agreement ---Limitation---Plaintiff/vendee had himself failed to pay
balance amount on or before date fixed for execution of sale-deed in his favour by vendor/defendant---Suit under Art. 113 of Limitation Act, 1908 was to be filed
within three years, from date fixed for execution of sale-deed, but plaintiff/vendee had filed same after six years from the date of sale---Suit was rightly dismissed
concurrently by Courts below being barred by time---Such concurrent findings of Courts below based on facts and law could not be interfered.
Citation Name: 2001 MLD 1861 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
MUHAMMAD SAEED VS MUHAMMAD ASIF
Civil Procedure Code --Order VII of C.P.C. Plaint--1 , Civil Procedure Code --Order VII of C.P.C. Plaint--11 , Civil Procedure Code --Order VII of C.P.C. Plaint--6 ,
✉
----S.3 & First Sched.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, Rr. 1, 6 & 11---Suit, limitation for---Plaintiff had to show that his suit was not instituted after the
period prescribed therefore by First Sched. to the Limitation Act and that it was not required to be dismissed under S.3 of the said Act.
SAKINA BIBI VS NAZAR
Second appeal---Respondent had neither raised the plea that appeal was beyond time nor took such stand in its memorandum of second appeal---High Court
was justified to disallow to raise the point of limitation in second appeal.
MUSHTAQ AHMAD VS AHMAD YAR
Limitation Act 1908 Preamble & S.3---Law of limitation sets out rules of governance and administration which have the effect of preventing Court from providing
legal redressal of rights through judicial process even where such rights subsist.
MANZOOR HUSSAIN VS WAPDA
Limitation Act 1908 Preamble---Omni bus or residuary Articles to the Limitation Act, 1908--Applicability---Principle---Where a particular Article of Limitation Act,
1908, was attracted, resort to omnibus and residuary Article could not be made.
Citation Name: 2000 YLR 1185 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH ✉

Bookmark this Case 
MUHAMMAD , YUNUS VS LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHADADPUR
Land Acquisition Act 1894--54 , Land Acquisition Act 1894--6 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
----Ss.4, 6, 18 & 54-- Acquisition of land--Reference, filing of---Limitation---Jurisdiction of Court to entertain reference ---Scope--Lands of the appellants were
acquired and references against the compensation award were sent to the Additional District Judge beyond a period of six weeks ---Validity--Period prescribed
for filing of such reference was six weeks as provided by S.18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the same could only be made to the District Judge---Court was
under a duty to show awareness of the law to apply same, irrespective of the fact whether parties or their counsel invoked the law or not---Reference ought not to
have been sent and if sent, ought to have been rejected by the Additional District Judge on the legal position---Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to
entertain and to adjudicate on such references as the same were illegal and did not confer jurisdiction on him--Judgments passed by Additional District Judge
having no legal sanctity the same were void and were set aside in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2000 MLD 1454 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
SHAHANSHAH HUSSAIN VS THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Limitation Act 1908 ----Preamble---Limitation Act, 1908, only extinguishes the remedy and not the right.
INAYATULLAH KHAN VS OBAIDULLAH KHAN
PLD 1972 SC 123,
Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 178 , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 181 ,
S. 14---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Sched., Arts. 178 & 181---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Appeal before Supreme Court---Filing award to Court for
making same rule of Court---Limitation---Appellant had contended that award which was filed by arbitrators in Court after more than three years, was time-barred
under Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908 and on that Court same could not be made rule of Court---Earlier, issue of limitation was framed -on objection of appellant
and same was decided against appellant by Trial Court, but such decision was not challenged by the appellant before High Court--- Appellant, in circumstances,
could not be allowed to raise that point before Supreme Court since same had obtained finality---Even otherwise in view of Art. 178, Limitation Act, 1908, which
governed application for filing of award to be made rule of Court under Arbitration Act, 1940, question of applying residuary Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908 would
not arise.
Head Notes Case Description ✉
VICTORY CORPN. VS EMIRATES BANK
PLD 1993 SC 109,
Banking Companies-Ss. 21 & 22---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.181, 183 & 3---Suit for recovery of loan under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans)
Ordinance, 1979---Preliminary decree was passed on 12-2-1989 and final decree on 29-3-1992---Execution application---Limitation---Bank filed execution.
application before High Court on 16-10-1997 which was transferred to the Banging Court and was present before the said Court on 7-2-1998---Debtor applied for
dismissal of the execution application on the plea of limitation, which was dismissed by the Banking Court---Validity---Jurisdiction exercised by High Court under
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 and Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 being
ordinary original civil jurisdiction, limitation period was to be regulated by Art.183, Limitation Act, 1908---Finding of Banking Court that Art. 183, Limitation Act,
1908 was attracted and that execution was filed before expiry of six years was correct and no exception could be taken to that.
Citation Name: 1998 PTD 2769 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SUKKUR ZONE, SUKKUR VS MESSRS GATRON (INDUSTRIES) LTD, QUETTA
----S.135(8)---Disposal of appeal by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal--Communication of order passed by the Appellate Tribunal to relevant persons is mandatory.
HUSSAIN BIBI VS SIRAJ DIN
Limitation Act 1908 Preamble---Limitation Act merely bars the remedy or assistance of Court for execution of the decree but does not extinguish the right or title
based on the decree.
Citation Name: 1998 CLC 1313 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH ✉

MUHAMMAD YASIN & CO. VS KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Arbitration Act 1940--30 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
----Ss.14 & 30---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble---Dispute between parties referred to sole arbitrator with consent of parties---Question of limitation was
considered by Arbitrator who rightly found that plaintiff's claim was within time---Neither before Arbitrator nor before High Court any reference was made by
defendant to any Article of Limitation Act, 1908, to support its contention that plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation---Once defendants admitted plaintiff's claim,
relating to goods in question, it was its moral and legal duty to see that same was returned to its real claimant---More incumbent upon defendant when resolution
in that connection was also adopted by its Governing Body--Objections raised by defendant before High Court were hypertechnical in nature, with the aim not to
perform in their statutory duties and other obligations--Objections against Award being not warranted were not maintainable in circumstances.
Citation Name: 1997 PLD 30 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case 
JAWAID VS COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, KHANPUR DAM, HARIPUR
Preamble & S.54---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble, Ss. 5 & 3---Bar of limitation ---Condonation---Applicability of S.5, Limitation Act, 1908 to proceedings
under Land Acquisition Act, 1894---S. 3, Limitation Act, 1908 would bar remedy in different cases when relief was sought after specified time for bringing about
claim---Section 5, Limitation Act, 1908 was exception to such bar and provided for admission of claim even after expiry of period of limitation provided the
appellant or applicant satisfied Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring appeal or making application within such period---Appellant's contention that
S.5, Limitation Act, 1908 would not apply to Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would imply that he was not entitled to benefit of any condonation ---Condonation of
delay in filing appeal was refused in circumstances.
LAL KHAN VS REHMATULLAH
Civil Procedure Code --Order XLIII of C.P.C. Appeals from Orders--1 , Code of Civil Procedure 1908--115 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
Ss. 12(2), 115 & O.XLIII, R. 1---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble--Order passed under S. 12(2), C.P'.C. whether appealable or revisable---Order passed
under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was not appealable but was revisable---Appellate Court has got power to convert any appeal into revision and vice versa provided such
decision was not otherwise affected by any other law like that of limitation---Appellate Court having treated appeal against judgment, decree or order under S.
12(2), C.P.C. as revision, petitioner could not under any circumstances come before High Court in second revision---Revision before High Court was thus
incompetent in circumstances.

✉
CHENAB CEMENT PRODUCTS VS BANKING TRIBUNA
Limitation Act 1908 S. 12 --- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble --- Non-application of Limitation Act, 1908 to the proceedings under Banking Tribunals Act,
1984 cannot be objected to for it is the prerogative of the Legislature to make or not to make a law applicable including the law of limitation or to provide different
limitation periods for different purposes.

SOOMAR VS MUHAMMAD PARIAL
Limitation Act 1908 Preamble---Provisions of Limitation Act, 1908, should be strictly construed---Where more than one interpretation was possible, that
interpretation which would avoid non-suiting a party on ground of limitation should be adopted.
ABDUL REHMAN VS I.G.POLICE
Limitation Act 1908 Preamble---Provisions of Limitation Act 1908 cannot be extended by analogy.
Citation Name: 1995 PLC(CS) 1191 SUPREME-COURT

✉
ABDUL REHMAN VS INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE
----Preamble---Provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 cannot be extended by analogy.
SAIN VS BAZ
S. 115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble and S. 5---Filing of revision---Limitation---Although no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing of revision
in Limitation Act, 1908, yet the same has to be filed diligently within period of 90 days---Revision, however, could be filed after expiry of 90 days provided
petitioner had made out a case for condonation of delay---Court, while considering question of condonation of delay in filing revision would not follow strict rule
that delay of each day was to be explained but at the same time every ground of delay could not be accepted.
SARDARAZ KHAN VS AMIRULLAH KHAN
Limitation Act 1908 S. 14(1)---Phrase "unable to entertain it" as used in S.14(1), Limitation Act, 1908---Connotation---Phrase "unable to entertain it" appearing in
S.14(1), Limitation Act, 1908, would not serve the purpose of negligent and non-diligent appellant, such phrase give idea of entertainment (of appeal etc.) only
where Court lacks pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction and it has to return such appeal without entertaining it---Connotation of the phrase "unable to entertain it"
was that no adjudication could be made in such situations viz. lack of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction---Court while coming to conclusion that it had no such
jurisdiction, regardless of period of time involved, would be deemed to be "unable to entertain it", notwithstanding the fact that it (lis) practically stood received
and registered in the relevant register of appeals or suits.--[Words and phrases].
ABDUL KARIM VS MUHAMMAD AKRAM

✉
Limitation Act 1908 ---- Question of limitation would become question of law where facts necessary for resolution of such question were available on record.
AMANULLAH VS MUHAMMAD HASSAN
S. 60---Limitation Act (1X of 1908), Preamble---Matter referable to law of limitation---Effect---Whenever any matter was referable to the law of limitation, question
of laches would completely lose significance---In case of mortgage, matter could safely be referred to the law of limitation and, thus, no reliance at all be placed
on laches.--[Laches].
WALAYAT VS KANEEZ FATIMA
PLD 1964 SC 143, PLD 1975 SC 624,
Limitation Act 1908 ---- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.91---Alleged transaction of gilt by a Pardahnashin lady---Suit for setting aside such transaction ---
Limitation-Voluntary execution of gift deed by plaintiff (Pardahnashin lady) and its registration at her instance was not established---Such transaction being void
instrument, provision of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908 would not be applicable thereto---If in respect of a void instrument, no suit for cancellation was brought within
three years in terms of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908, such instrument would not acquire any validity and would remain ineffective as before---Sole criterion for
applicability of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908, was whether deed in question had affected rights till some person entitled to have it set aside had done so---Where
the deed as a matter of fact never affected rights, need for its being set aside would never arise---Void instrument procured in result of fraud, would not attract
provision of Art. 91, Limitation Act, 1908.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD VS HAIDER ZAMAN

✉
Preamble---Every plea has to be brought before the forum competent to adjudicate upon the rights within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1908.
GHULAM FATIMA VS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, PUNJAB
Limitation Act 1908 Preamble---Object of law of limitation is to help the vigilant and not the indolent---Helping hand could not be extended to a litigant having
gone into deep slumber, on having become forgetful of his rights---Concerned person, has, however, to be made aware of the invasion on his interests, and such
awareness has to be ascertained as a matter of fact.
ALLAH RAKHA VS U.P. CHURCH
Limitation Act 1908 ----Preamble---Statute of limitation is a procedural statute.
Citation Name: 1992 PLC 117 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
A.F. FERGUSON & CO. VS DISTRICT COURT, KARACHI
----S. 6---West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance (VIII of 1969), S.12---Limitation Act (IX of L908), Preamble---Words "when contrary to the
provisions of this Ordinance"---Connotation---Claims for recovery, or delay in payment, of cost of living allowance---No period of limitation prescribed for making a
claim for recovery or delay in payment of cost of living allowance under S. 6 of the Act I of 1974---Limitation Act did not apply to matters not dealt with by it and
such laws having the effect to take away existing rights should be applied in favour of rights sought to be defeated---Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973,
being a beneficial legislation, Courts should be generous towards persons who were to benefited out of this legislation.
✉
Citation Name: 1992 MLD 2321 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Bookmark this Case 
MAHMOODUR RAHMAN FAISAL VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Limitation Act 1908 ----Sched.--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203 read with Art.203-B(c)-Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Schedule which generally
speaking comes within the purview of procedural law was left to be examined by Federal Shariat Court in other petitions pending before it.
Citation Name: 1992 MLD 1257 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case 
MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MIRZA BEGUM
----S.3 & Preamble---Limitation prescribed in Limitation Act. 1908 relates to the institution of suits, appeals .etc.---Provision of S.3; Limitation Act, 1908, postulates
that every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after period of limitation would be dismissed---Limitation Act. 1908, however, does not fix any
time for moving an amendment application.
Citation Name: 1991 MLD 261 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case 
RAZA MUHAMMAD VS JUMMA KHAN
----O.IX, R.7---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble---Ex parte order, setting aside of---Limitation---No time has been prescribed for seeking setting aside of ex
parte order.

✉
HAQ NAWAZ KHAN VS MUHAMMAD YAQOOB
Limitation Act 1908 Adverse possession---Mere non-payment of rent or discontinuance of payment of rent would not by itself create any adverse possession.
ALI PIPE INDUSTRIES FAISALABAD VS UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Preamble??Act is a consolidating and amending statute and is exhaustive of all matters dealt with by it??Courts are not permitted to travel beyond its provisions
to add to or to supplement them??High Court has no powers by Rules to add to or modify the provisions of the Act except when such power is conferred upon it
by statutory authority.
SIND GLASS INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984--4 , Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984--9 , Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--
PREAMBLE ,
SsA, 6 & 9--Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--Banking Tribunals--Composition and functions--Recovery of loans--Procedure provided for Banking Tribunals to dispose
of cases is analogous to provisions of Civil Procedure Code for recovery of loans--Non-application of Limitation Act, 1908 to proceeding before Banking Tribunal
being prerogative of legislature, could not be assailed--Procedure to be followed by Banking Tribunals stated. Subsection (1) of section 4 of the Banking Tribunals
Ordinance, 1984 provides establishment of as many Banking Tribunals as the Federal Government may consider necessary for the territorial limits to be specified
in the Notification, whereas subsection (2) of section 4 deals with the composition of the Tribunal and provides that it shall consist of a person who is or has been
or is qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court or a District Judge or an Additional District Judge who shall be the Chairman and two members to be
appointed by the Federal Government.
GHULAM RASOOL VS MUHAMMAD IDREES QURESHI

✉
Limitation Act 1908 ---Preamble--Difference between law of limitation and law of prescription--Law of prescription prescribes period on expiry of which not only
judicial remedy is barred, but a substantive right is extinguished in one and acquired by other, whereas law of limitation would not destroy right, but only
extinguishes the remedy.
Citation Name: 1989 PLD 89 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Bookmark this Case 
MAQBOOL AHMAD QURESHI VS THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Limitation Act 1908 ---Preamble--Limitation of time--Concept and object. The law of limitation of time wherever applied does not always mean to usurp or help
usurp a right. It rather operates on the principle that if a claimant does not press his claim in the time specified by law, through an authority appointed' for the
purpose by law, it will be presumed that either the claimant waived his right or was not serious and rather indolent so as to have acquiesced. The concept of law
is only this that the authority created or appointed for helping a claimant in such a situation will not help if the claimant knowing the position of law did not ask for
it within the prescribed period.
ALI MOHAMMAD H. K. DADA VS STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKSITAN
Art. 22--Life Insurance (Nationalisation) Rules, 1972, R.15k2)-Limitation Act (IN of 1908), S.29 & Arts. 90 & 120-Application filed within period prescribed by
R.15(2) of the Rules was within time-Provisions of S.29, Limitation Act, 19 8 will be attracted to and the provisions contained either in Art.90 or 120 of Limitation
Act, 1908 would not be applicable from the date of the enforcement of sub-rule (2) of R.15 as added in 1975 in the Life Insurance (Nationalisation) Rules, 1972.
GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS SHAMIM AKHTAR
Civil Procedure Code --Order XXII of C.P.C. Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties--4 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE
, Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 177 ,
✉
--O.XXII, R.4--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 177, Sched. I--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199--Abatement of writ petition--Promulgation of Law
Reforms Ordinance, 1972--Effect of--Leave to appeal granted to examine whether on account of promulgation of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 abatement could
have at all taken place; and whether Art. 177, Limitation Act was attracted to writ proceedings.--[Abatement].
SHAH JEHAN BEGUM VS RENT CONTROLLER, KARACHI (WEST)
Limitation Act 1908 Preamble & S. 3--Law of limitation, held, was only a procedural law and not a substantive law as to create a vested right in favour of a party.
H. B. L. VS MUSSARAT ALI KHAN
Preamble--Law of limitation, held, would be construed strictly against the party who sets up plea of limitation -As Limitation Act deprives a party of valuable right,
unless provision thereof, was clear and beyond doubt, a benevolent construction, favourable to party whose valuable right was being taken away was always to
be given.-[Interpretation of statutes].
STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS MST. MAROOF JAN
---O. IX, r. 7-Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-Ex parte proceedings Setting aside of -Limitation-Application for setting aside ex parte proceedings, held, would not be
barred by limitation as there is no specific Article in the Limitation Act governing application for setting aside ex parte proceedings.
MUHAMMAD JALAT KHAN VS GHULAM SARWAR
Limitation Act 1908 ---Judgment--Decree--Application for seeking correction of accidental omission or clerical mistakes--No limitation period, held, was prescribed
for application seeking correction of accidental omission or clerical mistake--Such power of correction could be exercised by Court sum motu--Correction of
judgment/decree would take effect restrospectively, from date of judgment/decree sought to be corrected--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152.
Citation Name: 1986 PLC 1031 LABOUR-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
VS
---S. 17--Limitation Act (1X of 1908), Preamble--Plea of limitation-Previous finding on limitation not challenged--Effect--Where plea of limitation was raised before
Authority and same was rejected, such plea of limitation, held, could not be re-agitated in appeal because of previous finding attaining finality--Appellate Court
would not be competent to go into such plea of limitation.
MEHR NISHAN VS GULZAR BEGUM
1983 C L C 1160,
--O.XLI, r. 20--Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--Necessary party, impleading of--Limitation--Where a necessary party had not been joined and limitation against him
had expired, it was not permissible to implead him as a respondent after limitation--Such person could not be held interested in result of appeal.
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS HAJI ✉
Civil Procedure Code --Order XLI of C.P.C. Appeals from Original Decrees--21 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Limitation Act 1908--3 , Limitation Act 1908--
PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 169 ,
---Art. 185(3)--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & Art. 169, Sched. I--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. XLI, r. 21--Ex parte decree-Application for rehearing
time-barred--Non-appearance of counsel due to absence of relevant page in cause list supplied to counsel--Plea of lack of knowledge of ex parte decree
supported by affidavits filed by applicant and clerk of counsel--No affidavit filed by counsel himself-Held, in absence of an affidavit by petitioners' counsel, lack of
knowledge o date of hearing of appeal, on his part, with counsel in not proved-Case being covered by Art. 169, Limitation Act, 1908 leave to appeal refused.
PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN (PUNJAB) VS MIAN ABDUL HAMID & CO
Code of Civil Procedure 1908--96 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 158 ,
S.14(2)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Sched,, Art.158--Notice intimating fact of filing of award-Appellant having sufficient
notice of filing of award through its counsel, not caring to put forth any objection within time provided under Limitation Act, 1908--Sole Arbitrator to whom matter
referred giving award in favour of respondent--No legal exception, held, could be taken to assessment made by such Arbitrator--Order of Civil Judge making
award rule of Court and passing a decree in accordance therewith maintained in circumstances--Appellant (Government) could not be accorded any preferential
treatment.
MUHAMMAD ALI VS SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969--37 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
Ss.25-A & 37(3)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--Notice of grievance--Service of--Employee contending that since his
dismissal from service itself was illegal and void ab initio, question of limitation did not arise--Held, statute of limitation could only be ignored if order was shown
to'-have been passed without jurisdiction when the commencement of period of limitation was dependent on that order--Nothing being on record to show that
such order was passed without lawful authority and was void ab initio, the plea raised, held, had no force. --[ Limitation ]

✉
MIR. ALAM KHAN VS SHER ALAM
--- S.29--Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--Pre-emption suit--Oral sale--Limitation--Sale taking place from date when parties settled their terms--Suit for pre-emption
brought after six years, held, barred by time.--[Preemption].
SIDDIQUE KHAN VS ABDUL SHAKUR KHAN
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-Limitation Act (IX of 1908)Separation of law of court-fees from Civil Procedure Code, notwithstanding judicial exercise, through
legislative intervention, desired by Supreme Court with further observation that law of limitation if at all to be introduced in relation of court-fees same has to be
done clearly and specifically in law on that subject.
GULZAMAN VS COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act 1894--18 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
-- Ss. 12(2) & 18-Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-Objection petition Limitation- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 not making provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 applicable but
fixing a special period of limitation-Notice of award made not given to persons interested-Period of limitation of six months for filing objection petition, held, would
start from date of making of award and not from date of knowledge thereof by persons interested.-[Limitation].
ABDUL QADIR VS MUHAMMAD MAHFOOZ
✉
-- S. 115-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 18 & Sched. I, Art.10-Revision-Question of law regarding applicability of S. 18 or Sched. I, Art. 10, Limitation Act, 1908
being involved in a case, same, held, could be examined under revisional jurisdiction of High Court.-[Revision (civil)].
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE
S. 3 and Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-Consolidation of holdings Consolidation scheme sanctioned in 1950 challenged before Collector, Additional Commissioner
and Board of Revenue for five long years but no challenge thrown to rights of petitioner who took possession in 1961-Proceedings against petitioner whereby
certain changes ordered in Khatas of petitioner taken by Additional Commissioner in 1966 at instance of one of respondents and not suo motu in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction-Proceedings, held, barred by limitation and orders of Additional Commissioner without lawful authority.--[Limitation].
SARGODHA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO.
Contract Act 1872--23 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
Ss. 23 & 28 and Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-Insurance Policy Clause in Insurance Policy limiting liability of Insurance Company for a certain period, held, not hit by
$s. 23 & 28 of Contract Act, 1872.
AHMAD VS MST. FATEH
And Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act (I of 1920)-Punjab Act I of 1920, having been repealed general law of limitation, as laid down in Act IX of 1908, held, would
apply.-[Interpretation of statutes].
Citation Name: 1981 CLC 372 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH ✉

NAZIR OF THE HIGH COURT OF SIND & BALUCHISTAN, KARACHI VS MUHAMMAD ISHAQ-HAJI DOST MUHAMMAD
Civil Procedure Code --Order XXI of C.P.C. Execution of Decrees and Orders--1 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 183 ,
First Sched, Art. 183 [as amended by Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)] read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI Limitation-Execution of decree-
Amendment curtailing period of limitation from twelve years to six years-Not retrospective Decree passed prior to amendment in, 1972 of Article 183-Period of
twelve years previously available, held, continued to be period for execution of such decree notwithstanding execution application having been filed after
amendment of 1972.-[Decree].
UNITED BANK LTD. VS BAWA CO. LTD.
Art. 65-Limitation-Cannot be extended simply by contract-Period of limitation prescribed by statute, held, cannot inter vivos be curtailed or enlarged unless so
provided or warranted by any provisions of Limitation Act itself.-[Limitation].
NATHEY KHAN VS GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN
-- Limitation-Interpretation of statutes-Plaintiff's cause of action fairly falling under different Articles of Limitation Act, 1908, ambiguity, held, to be construed in
favour of plaintiff.[Interpretation of statutes].
AHMAD DIN VS SYRAN BI
Limitation Act 1908--12 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 162 ,
----First Sched. Art. 162 read with S. 12-Certified copy of High Court's order passed in revision not filed in support of review application-Time taken in obtaining
such copy-Held, not time required within meaning of S. 12 for filing a time-barred review application in High Court-Review application, in circumstances, merited
dismissal for being grossly time-barred- [Limitation Revision].
CHAIMAN DISTRICT SCREENING COMMITTEE, LAHORE VS SHARIF AHMAD HASHMI
S. 5-Condonation of delay-Service matters-No hard and fast rules-Question of sufficiency or otherwise of cause-To be examined in light of facts of each case-
Court of equity always refuse aid to enforce stale claims or demands-Principle of laches, however. applied strictly where public servant seeks restoration to his
office or other redress against a wrongful order - Reasons stated.-[Civil service-Laches].
Citation Name: 1975 PLD 52 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case 
DAD VS RAMZAN
Central Laws (Statute Reform) Ordinance 1960--3 , Limitation Act 1908--6 , Limitation Act 1908--7 , Limitation Act 1908--8 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
Ss. 6, 7 & 8 read with Central Laws (Statute Reforms) Ordinance (XXI of 1960), S. 3-a-imitation-Disability to file suit-Person disabled on account of insanity or
minority to file suit-Can file suit when disability ceases to exist-Rule, however, not applicable in case of suits to enforce right of pre-emption-Suits for pre-emption-
To be filed immediately after cause of action accrues and not on cessation of disability.
ABDUL RAUF GHAZIANI VS ZAIBUNNISSA
Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Sindh Civil Court Rules--RULE , Succession Act 1925--PREAMBLE ,
R. 347 read with Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) and Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-Letters of administration- Succession certificateApplication for-May,
notwithstanding r. 347, be entertained after expiry of period of 3 years mentioned in rule-Succession Act, 1925 or Limitation Act, 1908 not having prescribed any
limitation for purpose, limitation could not be prescribed under any rule-Court may refuse application on ground of delay in certain cases even though no period of
limitation prescribed yet such cases confined to cases where grant of petition only discretionary-Petitions for grant of probate or letters of administration-Not
cases where grant of petition discretionary.
AUSTALASIA BANK LTD. VS SUHAIL & CO
S. 19-Acknowledgment of liability-Promissory note-Not an acknowledgment of existing liability but merely promise to pay certain sum in future-Promissory note-A
security rather than acknowledgment-Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 4. Lallu Mal v. Pandit Beoti Ram A I R 1924 All. 70 ref.
YUSUF SONS VS KHAIRUDDIN RUKUNUDDIN
Sched., Art. 6(1)-Separate and distinct transactions-Limitation Various sums received by defendants, or being paid to plaintiffs, without settlement of accounts-
Defendants having running account with plaintiffs-Each item, held, not related to separate and distinct transaction-Suit not barred after 3 years.
FAIZ ALI SHAH VS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF
----Limitation-Letters Patent appeal-Time requisite for obtaining copies of judgment and decree sought to be appealed from under Letters Patent-To be excluded
in computing period of limitation.
Head Notes Case Description ✉
GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH VS GHULAM MUHAMMAD
High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders--RULE , Limitation Act 1908--12 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,
S. 12(2)(3) & Art. 179 read with High Court (Lahore) Rules & Orders, Vol. V, Chap. 8-A-Application for grant of certificate for leave to appeal-Limitation-
Application for grant of copy of decree made on 9-4-1964-Copy supplied on 15-7-1964-Application for grant of certificate for leave to appeal filed on 6-10-1964 -
Application, held, within time and time taken in obtaining copy of decree had to be excluded-Subsection (3), of S. 12 held further, not attracted to case-Subsection
(3) applicable only where decree appealed from or sought to be reviewed-Mere fact of no requirement for filing copies of judgment or decree being laid down in
High Court Rules & Orders-No ground to ignore S. 12, Limitation Act, 1908-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss 109 & 110.
BALUCH KHAN VS LAL BIBI
S. 4(2)-Limitation Act, 1908 did not apply to State of Kharan up to 9-6-60 the date on which Ordinance XXI of 1960 came into force-Suits filed prior to the date
saved under S. 4(2) of Ordinance-In Shariat, no bar of limitation to institution of suit or other legal action for enforcement of right fn property or in personam.

ABDUL HANAN VS KAPOOR KHAN
Sched. I, Art. 148-Redemption of mortgage-Limitation-Mutation attested by Revenue Officer after death of mortgagor on basis of statement made by sons of
mortgagor Patwari subsequently reporting during girdawari as to existence of mortgage-Such entry of Patwari's report in revenue paper did not by itself constitute
evidence of mortgage-Transaction having remained inchoate, mortgage holding field was one entered on basis of statements of mortgagor's sons-Limitation for
suit for redemption of mortgage started from date when mutation attested and not from date of Patwari's report.

✉
MST. SARDAR BEGUM VS MST. SHERIN TAJA
Civil Procedure Code --Order XXI of C.P.C. Execution of Decrees and Orders--63 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 11 ,
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-Procedural law-Does not extinguish a right, except by adverse possession under S. 28, but only bars remedy-Law, in such case, not to
be strictly interpreted against a person adversely affected-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 28.
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH DEFENCE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN VS NAZAR DIN KHATTAK & SONS
Ss. 23 & 28 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & First Schad.-Contract prescribing limitation period for institution of legal proceedings contrary to
provisions of Limitation Act, 1908-Void to such extent-Terms of contract prescribing limitation to sue within three months of breach of contract-Such term in
contract, held, void and statutory period of limitation, in circumstances, 3 years in terms of S. 3 & First Sched. of Limitation Act, 1908.
SAWAB KHAN VS DR. ABDUL HAMID KHAN
Civil Procedure Code --Order XLI of C.P.C. Appeals from Original Decrees--19 , Code of Civil Procedure 1908--151 , Limitation Act 1908--3 , Limitation Act 1908-
-5 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 168 ,
Vol. V, Chapter III, rr. 5 & 8 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 19 & S. 151 and Limitation Act (I of 1872), First Sched., Art 168 and Ss. 3 & 5-
`Negligence of appellant's counsel to notice weekly and daily lists pf cases-.Not sufficient ground to extend period of limitation on for re-admission of appeal
dismissed for non prosecution.
QURESHI BROTHERS VS KHAIRPUR TEXTILE MILLS LTD

✉
Limitation Act 1908 First Sched., Art. 85 read with Art. 64-"Mutual, open and current account"---Two contractual relationships viz. principal and agent on one hand
and seller and buyer on the other-Transactions incorporated in one and same account by principal-cum-seller-Held there was reciprocity of accounts between
parties-Agreement between parties regarding mutuality of accounts pray be implied in course of dealings over a long time-Principal's suit, held, governed by Art.
85-Written acknowledgment of balance due by defendant does not necessarily mean that there was settlement of accounts or actual closure of business so as to
attract application of Art. 64.
GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN
Nasim Hasan Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Shaukat Ali Khawaja Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Khalilur Rahman Attorney (absent)
for Appellant. G. Safdar Shah, Additional Advocate-General, West Pakistan (Rustam S. Sidhwa Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Maqbul Ahmad
Rana Attorney (absent) in place of Ijaz Ali Attorney on record for Respondent.
KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS MESSRS KARIMI & CO.
----- S. 12 and First Sch. -Appeals governed by Articles of First Sch -Appellant entitled to benefit of S. 12 in excluding period required in obtaining copies even
where copies of judgment, etc. not necessary for filing appeal.
MUHAMMAD YAKOOB ALI MOHAMED VS ESTATE OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI
--- S. 4 read with Sind (Requisition of Land) Rules, r. 7 and Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 29 & 12 and Sch.-Sind (Requisition of Land) Act, 1947, a special Act
not governed by period prescribed in First Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908-Appeal against decision of Arbitrator acting under S. 4, Sind (Requisition of Land) Act,
1947-Appellant entitled under S. 12, Limitation Act, 1908, in computing period of limitation, to exclude time required for obtaining copy of judgment-Time for
appeal would run from date of knowledge of order passed.
AON MUHAMMAD VS REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER
Art. 98 and Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & Sch., Art. 151-Letters Patent Appeal against judgment given in writ jurisdiction-Court bound to examine plea of
limitation-Period for such appeal-Twenty days as prescribed by Art. 151, Limitation Act, 1908.
CENTRAL EXCHANGE BANK LTD. VS CH. DILAWAR ALI KHAN
Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Limitation--TERM ,
-----Limitation-Statute extending or abridging time during which proceedings to be taken-How far and to what extent retrospective-Limitation Act (IX of
1908)Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), S. 73.
BANK OF INDIA LTD VS MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
Limitation Act 1908 Limitation-----Matter of procedure only-To be decided in accordance with law of limitation as in force at time of institution of suit and not
according to law prevailing at time when cause of action in suit arose-Limitation Act (IX of 1908).

✉
DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO., LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Limitation Act 1908 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sch.-Determination of particular Article governing particular suit-Test: to discover real nature and purport of
suit on facts averred in plaint and as ultimately found proved.
ABDUL QAYUM KHAN VS M. A. QUDUS KHAN
Limitation Act 1908 Must be construed strictly---Act cannot be construed in manner which may help party to avoid solemn act like an award.
ZIAUL HAQ VS DR. A. BRABANT
Ss. 4 & 12 and First Sch., Art. 152-Computing period prescribed for appeal-Time spent in obtaining copy of order appealed against can be excluded under S. 12
if application is made before expiry of period of limitation--Appellant cannot be permitted to let whole period allowed for appeal to expire and then take advantage
of holidays occurring towards end of that period.
PUNJAB PROVINCE VS SULTAN KHAN AND OTHERS
Limitation Act 1908 Sch. I, Art. 177-No extended period of limitation provided for Government-Civil Procedure Code (V of~1908), O. XXII, r. 9 (2).
✉
MUHAMMADI STEAMSHIP CO. LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Limitation Act 1908 First Sch., Arts. 2 and 36-Suit for damages for negligence of Shipping Authority in issuing licence to shipping company to take its ship to sea
resulting in loss to company-Art. 36 applicable, and not Art. 2.
OSMAN VS HASHAM
Limitation Act 1908 First Sch. Art. 120-Suit for money paid by plaintiff to defendant for being employed towards a joint venture-Art. 120 applicable.
NOOR MUHAMMAD VS THE REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER KARACHI
Limitation Act 1908 ----Frist Schd. Arts. 169 & 181Application for re-hearing of appeal-from-order decided ex-parte-Limitation-Governed by Art. 181 and not Art.
169.
G. RAYMOND VS MESSRS HAJI MUHAMMAD ISHAQ HAJI DOST MUHAMMAD
Limitation Act 1908 ----First Sched. Art. 85"--Mutual open and current account"-Explained-A initially a commission agent of B in respect of sale of goods, but later
becoming vendee of such goods in consideration of amount spent by A (as friend of B) in retiring documents relating, to the goods and in clearing same, A being
re-imbursed by sale proceeds of goods-Account between A and B, held, not a "mutual open and current account"--Art. 85 inapplicable-Nature of transactions, not
method of accounting, determines whether account is "mutual".
ABDUL HAMID KHAN AND 5 OTHERS--DEFENDANTS VS INAYAT KHAN AND 2 OTHERS-PLAINTIFF
Limitation Act 1908 First Sched. Art. 142---Suit for ejectment on basis of title-Plaintiff should prove his title and possession of property within 12 years prior to
suit-Art. 142 applicable.
HAKMAN AND OTHERS-DEFENDANTS VS MST. SATTO-PLAINTIFF
Limitation Act 1908 -Statutes of limitation should be applied without regard to equitable considerations-Principles of justice and equity-Applicable when provision
of law not clear and definite.
MUHAMMAD NABI KHAN VS THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN,
Limitation Act 1908 First Schd., Art. 2-Acts not strictly in pursuance of a statute but bona fide believed to be so covered by Article.
CHANDURBHAN WADHUMAL AND ANOTHER VS KASSIM
Limitation Act 1908 First Schd. Art. 142Plaintiff may prove possession and subsequent dispossession from defendant's evidence.
NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS VS THE REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, KARACHI
Limitation Act 1908 First Sch. Art. 169-Applies to case in which decree in appeal has been passed.
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (OWNER OF NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY) VS MESSRS. ABDUL REHMAN ABDUL GHANI
Limitation Act 1908 First Sched. Art. 31Goods loaded in one waggon-Part delivered and part not delivered -Date on which part not delivered "ought to be
delivered" is the date on which the other part was delivered.
Citation Name: 1958 PLD 452 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case 
DADA LTD VS R. S. N. COMPANY LTD
Limitation Act 1908 First Schedule, Arts. 30 & 31 -Suit for damages of short delivery of goods-Period of limitation-Time begins to run from definite refusal-
Expression "when the goods ought to be delivered."

✉
IBRAHIM VS FAZAL DAD
Limitation Act 1908 ------First Schedule, Arts. 142, 144-Application of either depends upon nature of allegations in plaint-Symbolic possession sufficient to
interrupt adverse possession.
FAZAL HUSSAIN VS NOOR KHAN
----Agricultural land-Proof of commencement of-Khasra Girdawari, date of, or surmises about preparation of land for sowing-Not reliable guides-Limitation Act (IX
of 1908), First Schedule, Art. 144.
RASHID INAYAT VS THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Limitation Act 1908 ----First Schd. Art. 14Suit for declaration that plaintiff's dismissal from service was wrongful, not necessarily a suit for setting aside order of
dismissal-Art. 14 inapplicable in terms to such a suit-Decision as a preliminary issue of the question of limitation in such a case, held, inadvisable.
MUHAMMAD YUSAF SHAH VS MUHAMMAD AKBAR SHAH
Limitation Act 1908 -----, First Sch., Art. 144 Applies only in case of suit by person entitled to possession, against one in possession, without title.
✉
IBRAHIM VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, N. W. R, LAHORE)
Limitation Act 1908 ------First Sch. Arts. 14 & 120 Suit by Government Railway employee for declaration that his dismissal from service was illegal and void-Not
covered by Art. 14, but by Art. 120.
ATA ULLAH VS MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN
Limitation Act 1908 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Schd., Art. 91--Does not apply to void instruments.
Citation Name: 1956 PLD 321 FEDERAL-COURT-OF-PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case 
ABDULLAH AND OTHERS VS MST. BAKHTO MAT AND ANOTHER
Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Specific Relief Act 1877--42 ,
S. 3-Widow's limited interest under custom-Alienation by gift- Declaratory suit by Muslim Law heirs of last male-holder entitled to succeed under S. 3, competent-
Custom (Punjab)- Declaratory suit-Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 42-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Schedule, Arts. I25, 141.
Citation Name: 1956 PLD 72 FEDERAL-COURT-OF-PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case 
THE PUNJAB PROVINCE VS THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
---S. 3--"Association of persons", what is-Government of a Province is not an "association of persons"-Government of a Province therefore not taxable---
"Individual' means a natural person.
JOGESH CHANDRA ROY VS MYMENSINGH CO-OPERATIVE TOWN BANK LTD.
Limitation Act 1908 First Sched. Art. 182---Constructive res judicata will operate where decree-holder has taken a step-in-aid, e.g., an order of attachment and
the judgmentdebtor having been served has raised no objection on question of limitation, but not where decree-holder has not taken any step-inaid of execution.
SWAMI TURIANANDA ALIAS DINESH CHANDRA GUHA MUSTAFI VS SISIR KUMAR SEN
S. 10 and Sched. First, Art. 98-Application.
FIRM ATTAR DIN-MUZAFFAR DIN VS ABDUL AZIZ
Limitation Act 1908 ----First Schedule, Art. 182---Step-in-aid-Decree-holder's application to have decree sent to another Court for execution is a step-in-aid of
execution.

✉
SHEIKH MAULA BAKHSH VS SHEIKH MUHAMMAD SADIQ
Limitation Act 1908 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sch. Art. 182, cl. (4)----Amendment of decree-Starting point of limitation. The formal decree sheet in a
partition suit was drawn up on 27th April, 1945. On 7th July, 1945 an application for amendment of decree was made and on 23rd February, 1950 the required
amendment was made. On 26th April, 1.950 execution of decree was applied for:
Citation Name: 1954 PLD 33 JUDICIAL-COMMISSIONER-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case 
CROWN VS FAZAL KARIM
S. 5 and First Schedule, Art. 157--Crown's appeal against acquittal preferred beyond six months-Delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause -
Misconceived Revision petition preferred within six months not treated as appeal.
SULTAN AHMED VS FAUZAL KABIR ALIAS MONOHAR ALI CHOUDHURY
Limitation Act 1908 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Schedule, Art. 144Adverse Possession of guardian against minor-Of strangers against minor. It will be
unsafe to lay down as general proposition that there could be no adverse possession of property which belongs to the lunatic or minor during the continuance of
the lunacy or minority of the owner. The question has in each case to be decided with reference to the anterior relationship between the person taking possession
and the lunatic or minor, and to whether any circumstance exist which would entitle the Court to hold that the person who entered into possession did so under
circumstances which would in law make him only an agent or bailiff of the lunatic or minor. In cases where it is clear that the person entering into possession was
under no duty to the lunatic or minor and entered into possession for his own benefit and in assertion of a title hostile to that of the lunatic or minor, limitation
would begin to run from the date when he so took possession, though the lunatic or minor would be entitled to file a suit within 3 years from the date when his
disability ceases (vide sections 6 and 8).
Citation Name: 1953 PLD 41 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT

✉
MUHAMMAD NURULLAH VS THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KARACHI, THROUGH THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
----First Schedule, Art. 62---Suit for refund of illegal tax levied by Municipality-Article applies.
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Limitation Act 1908 Sch. First, Arts. 30 and 31-Applicability according as cause of action is stated .to be loss or non-delivery.
SABITRI BALA VS ROHINI KANTA MONDAL
-----S. 151-Appeal dismissed under Rules of Court may be restored on application under S. 151, C. P. C. but inherent power to be exercised cautiously No.
limitation for such application-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Sch. I, Art. 168.
THE RELIANCE BANK LTD VS PRAFULLA KUMAR BANERJEE
----First Sch., Art. 85--Party opening current account with Bank-Bank at times allowing overdraft to party-Account, held mutual, open and current.
Citation Name: 1953 PLD 30 BAGHDAD-UL-JADID Bookmark this Case 
FATEH MUHAMMAD VS THE CROWN
O. IX, r. 13-Defendant absenting himself on date fixed for framing issues-Ex parte decree-Application for setting aside decree, made beyond 30 days from date of
decree but within such period counted from the defendants getting knowledge of decree-Time-barred-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Sch. I, Art. 164.
Citation Name: 1953 PLD 10 BAGHDAD-UL-JADID Bookmark this Case 
DITTO VS GHULAM HUSAIN
First Schedule, Arts. 142, 144Applicability-Distinction.
MIAN KAMAL DIN VS MALIK MUHAMMAD BASHIR
----First Schedule, Art. 164 "Summons" refers to summons issued for first appearance of defendant in Court-Defendant absent on an intermediate date must
apply within 30 days of date of ex-pane decree for setting aside same.
Citation Name: 1952 PLD 16 JUDICIAL-COMMISSIONERS-COURT-PESHAWAR Bookmark this Case 
MUHAMMAD HUMAYUN KHAN VS ABDUR RAZIK
----- S. 7 -Order postponing suit till "termination of War or till defendant was free"-Without jurisdiction-Application for reviving suit not necessary-Limitation Act (IX
of 1908), Sch. 1, Art. 181, inapplicable.
✉
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE VS PUNJAB PROVINCE
Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 120 , Limitation Act 1908--SCHI, 181 , Punjab Municipal Act 1911--81 ,
Ss. 80 (1) (2) (3), 81---Modes of recovery of arrear of tax--Period of Limitation for each mode---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Sch.I Arts. 120, 132,181.
KHAN SAHIB KHAN MUHAMMAD SAADAT ALI KHAN VS THE ADMINISTRATOR CORPORATION OF CITY OF LAHORE
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, r. 3-Is not applicable to revisions-Petition for revision cannot, therefore, be dismissed on ground of abatement-Civil
Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 141Indian Limitation Act (1X of 1908), First Schedule, Art. 176.

MIRU AND BIRU VS NUR MUHAMMAD
Limitation Act 1908 Adverse possession against Muhammadan widow's life estate------Held, not adverse against one having an independent right to succeed to
widow on her death or remarriage-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sch. Art. 141.
Notes on Cases
September
CLC Notes
YLR Notes
PCrLJ Notes
Journals
September
PLD SCMR
CLD PTD
MLD PLC
CLC YLR
PCrLJ GBLR
Miscellaneous
 Circulars
 General Orders
 Notifications
New Statutes
 Federal
✉
 Punjab
 KPK
 Balochistan
 Sindh
Copyrights © 2018 by Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd.

This site is developed & maintained by Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd.
Help (/Login/HelpPage) FAQ's Sitemap

Preamble Citations PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preamble Citations PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/7/2018 Pakistan Law Site

Search in Staute -- Limitation Act 1908-PREAMBLE 

Limitation Act 1908-PREAMBLE

Your Search returned total 151 records from 0 - 50

Citation Name: 2018 CLC 1195 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 

BAHADAR ALI VS DARAY KHAN

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2017 YLR 794 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 

MUHAMMAD SHARIF (deceased) VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector Layyah

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2016 PLD 872 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

KHUSHI MUHAMMAD VS Mst. FAZAL BIBI

Limitation Act 1908--3 , Limitation Act 1908--5 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2016 PLD 712 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

GHULAM QADIR VS Sh. ABDUL WADOOD

Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2016 YLRN 77 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case 

ABDUL WAHAB VS ABIDULLAH

Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2016 CLCN 93 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 

JAVAID IQBAL GHANI VS Malik ABDUL SHAFIQUE

Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2015 PLD 247 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

MUHAMMAD KHALIQ VS GUL AFZAL KHAN

Code of Civil Procedure 1908--114 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2015 PLD 212 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

Dr. MUHAMMAD JAVAID SHAFI VS Syed RASHID ARSHAD

Contract Act 1872--17 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2015 PLD 212 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

Dr. MUHAMMAD JAVAID SHAFI VS Syed RASHID ARSHAD

Limitation Act 1908--3 , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

S. 3 & Preamble---Law of limitation---Object, scope and significance.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2014 MLD 1135 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case 

KHAN SHAHZADA VS ALLIED BANK LTD.

Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2014 CLC 1166 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case 

KARAM CNG through Dildar VS CNGC, SWABI

Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2014 PLD 34 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 

BUILDING STORE VS MUHAMMAD HANIF

Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

Preamble---Rules of interpretation of Limitation Act, 1908.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2013 SCMR 238 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI VS ORGANIZATION OF KARACHI PORT TRUST WORKERS

Claim barred by limitation--Term , Constitutional petition--TERM , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2013 YLR 1523 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case 

MUSLIM GUL VS MIR BADSHAH

Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2011 PTD 2358 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 

Income Tax Ordinance 2001--PREAMBLE , Limitation Act 1908--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description