Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII,r.11

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII,r.11

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 113

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. VII, R. 11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) S.12---Rejection of plaint---Principles---Suit for specific performance of oral agreement to sell immovable property---Plaint of the plaintiffs was rejected concurrently---Validity while rejecting the plaint, the court had only to see the averments in the plaint and if on admitting all the grounds mentioned therein as correct, the plaintiffs are not found to be entitled for the decree in their favour, the plaint was liable to be rejected but if the grounds as pleaded in the plaint require leading of evidence in support thereof the plaint could not be rejected---Cause of action was also to be taken into consideration while rejecting the plaint, but without specifying in the impugned order as to how the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit, the plaint had been rejected---Oral agreement, in the present case, was stated to have been entered between the parties and terms of the said agreement had been specified by the plaintiffs; which were essential constituting the cause of action---Plaintiffs as such, had a cause of action and the suit was maintainable---High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case---Revision was allowed, accordingly. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ---Art. 113---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immovable property was rejected on the ground that same was time barred---Computation of time for limitation---Scope---Filing of suit for specific performance was controlled by Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908; which provided that where no time for completing the sale transaction was fixed under the said Article; the time was to run from when the plaintiff had noticed that the performance was being refused---No time for the performance of the agreement had been fixed, in the present case, and therefore, the time would be computed from the date of the refusal to perform the agreement; by the defendants---Revision was allowed. Mrs. Mussarat Shaukat Ali v. Mrs. Safia Khatoon and others 1994 SCMR 2189 and Haji Abdul Ghafoor through legal heirs v. Muhammad…

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