| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 718 2013 SLD 718 2013 CLC 640 |
Sindh High Court
C.M.A. No.903 of 2011 and Civil Revision Application No.49 of 2011, decision dated: 25-09-2012
ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
C.M.A. No.903 of 2011 and Civil Revision Application No.49 of 2011, decision dated: 25-09-2012
ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
WAJI QAMAR-UZZAMAN--Applicant
VS
NAZIMUDDIN AHMED
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 12(2),O.XXXVII,Rr.2,3
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 12(2),O.XXXVII,Rr.2,3
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 12(2), O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3---Suit for recovery of money on basis of document having title of promissory note but also containing the word agreement in its contents---Application for grant of leave to defend suit---Defendant's plea that such document filed was not negotiable instrument, thus, suit on its basis under O.XXXVII, R.2, C.P.C. was not maintainable---Non-appearance of defendant in court after grant of conditional leave resulted in passing of decree by Trial Court on 31-8-2006---Defendant's application under S.12(2), C.P.C. filed on 20-10-2012 for setting aside such decree alleging same to be without jurisdiction---Plaintiff's plea that application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was barred by time---Dismissal of application under S.12(2), C.P.C. by Trial Court---Validity---Defendant had disputed jurisdiction of Trial Court at very initial stage and also after passing of impugned decree through application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Regarding document in question, which was claimed by the plaintiff to be a negotiable instrument, Trial Court had not given any specific findings neither while assuming jurisdiction under summary chapter nor while dismissing application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Question whether Trial Court had jurisdiction to pass impugned decree, if found to be correct, would mean that the whole edifice built on such defective proceedings was bound to crumble down---Limitation would not run against a void order, rather same could be ignored and might not be allowed to stand thereagainst---High Court remanded case back to Trial Court to decide question as to whether such document fulfilled requirement of being a promissory note under law. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others v. Khalil Ahmed and another 1994 SCMR 782; Government of N.-W.F.P. and others v. Akbar Shah and others 2010 SCMR 1408; National Bank of Pakistan v. Khairpur Textile Mills Ltd. and others 2001 CLC 1187; Iffat Jabeen v. District Education Officer (MEE), Lahore and another 2011 SCMR 437; Executive District Officer Schools and Literacy, District Dir Lower and others v. Qamar Dost Khan and others 2006 SCMR 1630; Almas…
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