| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 2354 2001 SLD 2354 2001 CLC 408 |
Lahore High Court
Nos.23 and 24 of 1993, heard on 5th October 2000
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J
Athar Rehman Khan for Appellants. . Sh. Zia-ud-Din Ahmad Qamar for
Respondents
Nos.23 and 24 of 1993, heard on 5th October 2000
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J
Athar Rehman Khan for Appellants. . Sh. Zia-ud-Din Ahmad Qamar for
Respondents
STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 3 others
VS
SAFIA BEGUM
Law:
Section:
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 & 55---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.14---Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction---Limitation---Exclusion of period spent in proceedings before Wafaqi Mohtasib---Claim of plaintiff having been repudiated by defendant, plaintiff filed complaint with the Wafaqi Mohtasib which was rejected and plaintiff filed suit after about two years of rejection of the complaint---Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib being not a Court, proceedings before Wafaqi Mohatasib would not be deemed to be the proceedings in the wrong Court---Benefit of S.14 of Limitation Act, 1908, in circumstances, would not be attracted to the case of plaintiff. Masud Ahmad and 2 others v.. United Bank Ltd. 1992 SCMR 424; Said Ahmad Khan v. Syed Altaf Hussain 1986 MLD 2283 and Muhammad Sharif Khan v. Mst. Manzooran Begum 1992 CLC 22 ref. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 19 & Art.86---Computation of limitation period---Where on acknowledgement of liability in respect of property or right had been made in writing by the party against whom said property or right was claimed, a fresh period of limitation would be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 55---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.86---Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction---Limitation---Defendant in its evidence had nowhere stated that the suit was hit by limitation nor it was on file of the Court that as to when the claim of the plaintiff was lastly refused by defendant---Effect---Incumbent on the defendant to establish on record the date when the claim of the plaintiff was refused---Onus to prove that suit was barred by limitation, was on the defendant but he had failed to discharge the onus by producing sufficient and convincing evidence---Presumption, thus, would go against the defendant---Suits, in circumstances, were rightly decreed by Courts below. (d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42, & 55---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.86---Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction---Limitation---Date of death of insured person (deceased husband of plaintiff) though was the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492