| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 565 2006 SLD 565 2006 PLD 401 |
Lahore High Court
R.F.As. Nos. 331 and 334 of 1999, decided on 25th January, 2006
MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JJ
Khadim Hussain Qaiser for Appellant. Sadaqat Mahmood Butt for
Respondent
R.F.As. Nos. 331 and 334 of 1999, decided on 25th January, 2006
MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JJ
Khadim Hussain Qaiser for Appellant. Sadaqat Mahmood Butt for
Respondent
SHAHIDA PARVEEN
VS
SAMIULLAH MALIK
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 35A,OrderVII,Rule11
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 73,74
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 24,3
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 3---Plea of limitation had not been set up as a defence by the defendant, therefore, no issue had been framed and resultantly, the parties had not produced evidence on the point of limitation---Court, though was duty bound under S.3, Limitation Act, 1908 to dismiss the suit, appeal etc, if it was barred by time, even if the defendant had not taken an objection in this behalf, but at the same time, if the question of limitation was dependant upon the proof and determination of facts and the factual foundation had neither been pleaded nor proved by the defence, the Court was not bound to decide the same---Where the defendant not only had not set out any ground of limitation as an attack in the written statement, but such omission was conspicuous in the memo. of appeal as well, therefore, the plea of limitation was liable to be repelled. Muhammad Shafi through Legal Representatives v. Abdul Rehman through Legal Representatives PLD 2005 Lah. 129; Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Bashir PLD 2005 Lah. 74 and Dr. Q.M. Qarni v. Mir Khalilur Rehman and 4 others PLD 1975 Kar. 379 ref (b) Plaint--- ----Plaint as a whole is to be taken into consideration---Contents of one paragraph of the plaint shall be deemed embodying in the subsequent para of the plaint. (c) Tort--- ----Defamation---Allegation of appellant(wife) in the plaint of dissolution of marriage, amounted to defamation/libel and were made to deface and ridicule the respondent (husband) and those were not proved to be based upon the truth---Damages, determination of---Principles---Where the plaintiff (husband) had proved his case of defamation/libel against the appellant (wife), but at the same time, the damages awarded to him were under the impugned decree were punitive, rather compensatory, High Court in appeal reduced the amount of damages in circumstances---Damages for the heads not proved on record were not allowed. (d) Islamic law--- ----Marriage---Marriage bond between two Muslin's is in the nature of a civil contract but at the same time, it shall be a grave misconception to equate it with the ordinary civil contract---Nature of contract of marriage in Islam…
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