| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2264 2011 SLD 2264 2011 PLD 426 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 233 of 2007 and C.M.As. Nos. 4332 and 1291 of 2008; 5759, 5760, 5761 of 2009, decided on 25th May, 2011, DATE of hearing: 2nd March, 2011.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J
Safdar Mehmood for Plaintiff. Shaiq Usmani for Defendant No. 1.
Suit No. 233 of 2007 and C.M.As. Nos. 4332 and 1291 of 2008; 5759, 5760, 5761 of 2009, decided on 25th May, 2011, DATE of hearing: 2nd March, 2011.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J
Safdar Mehmood for Plaintiff. Shaiq Usmani for Defendant No. 1.
TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF Karachi--Plaintiff
VS
Messrs FATIMA SUGAR MILLS LTD. and 2 others----Defendants
Law:
Section:
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 3---Limitation---Applicability---Because of mandatory nature of S.3 of Limitation Act, 1908, the court before which any suit, appeal or application instituted, preferred or made is obliged to dismiss the sane although question of limitation may have not been set up as a defence. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 14(1)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151---Exclusion of tine---Bona fide proceedings---Determination---Question of fact---Plaintiff Trust filed suit against defendants before Banking Court but later on plaint was withdrawn and filed in court of plenary jurisdiction---Plaintiff sought exclusion of time spent before Banking Court on the ground that it was a bona fide mistake---Validity---Whether suit was filed in Banking Court with bona fide intention or with sheer negligence or plaintiff was prosecuting suit in Banking Court in good faith, the same was mix question of law and fact---Plaintiff was entitled to lead evidence to prove its bona fides and instead of technical knockout, it would be in the interest of justice to decide the case on its own merits---Controversy raised by plaintiff required evidence, therefore, both parties at the time of settlement of issues could suggest specific issue regarding the same and controversy could be decided after leading evidence---Application was disposed of accordingly. Muhammad Sharif Khan v. Mst. Manzoora Begum 1992 CLC 22; Muhammad Ali v. Imdad Hussain 1997 CLC 768 and Sher Muhammad and others v. Ismatullah and others 1996 CLC 206 ref. Imtiaz Ahmed v. Ghulam Ali and others PLD 1963 SC 382 rel. (c) Administration of justice--- ----Technicalities---Scope---Technicalities have to be avoided unless it is essential to comply with them on grounds of public policy---English system of administration of justice on which our own is based may be to certain extent technical but we are not to take from that system its defects---Any system, which by giving effect to the form and not to the substance defeats substantive rights, is defective to that extent---Ideal must always be a system that gives it every person what is his. ORDER MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---By this order…
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