Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 656 2013 SLD 656 2013 CLC 254
Sindh High Court
C.M.As. Nos.8320 and 8321 of 2011 in Suit No.1480 of 2007, decision dated: 19th November; 2012
NADEEM AKHTAR, 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

IRSHAD AHMED SHAD--Applicant

VS

PERVEZ AKHTAR and 2 others

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5

(a) Limitation Aot (IX of 1908)-------S. 5---Suit of plaintiff was dismissed for non-prosecution--- Application for restoration of suit---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Contention of plaintiff was that he had suffered paralyses and was bed ridden and during that period could not contact his counsel--Validity-Said contention could 'not be accepted---When a party engaged counsel to represent it, the matter became the responsibility of the counsel and it was not the duty of the client to follow up his case in order to apprise the counsel---Plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary relief of the court----Applications for restoration of suit and condonation of delay were dismissed , in circumstances. Muhammad Nawaz and 3 otliiers v. Mst. Sakina . Bibi and 3 others 1974 SCMR 223; Zahid Ahmed v, Deputy Director Adjudication and 2 others PLD 2006 Kai. 252 and Khalid Saigal v. National Investment Trust Ltd. and 2 others 1984 CLC 182 rel. (b) Counsel and Client--- ----Parties were bound by the acts and omissions of their counsel---In case of any negligence on part of the counsel; parties could not claim that they were not to be held responsible. (c) Administration of Justice--- ----When a matter was dismissed or any adverse order was passed, valuable rights accrued in favour of the other side, which could not be taken away unless a justifiable, strong or sufficient cause was shown. Badarul Alam for Applicant. ORDER NADEEM AKHTAR, J.--- 1 and 2. C.M.A. No.8321 of 2011 has been filed by the plaintiff for recalling of the Order passed by this Court on 11-1-2011, whereby this Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. C.M.A. No.8320 of 2011 has been filed by the plaintiff under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for condonation of the delay in filing the listed application for restoration. The Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11-1-2011 when it was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff, whereas the listed application for its restoration was presented on 8-6-2011. The learned counsel for'athe plaintiff has submitted that on 13-12-2010, the suit was ordered to be fixed for evidence out of turn by this Court on the application (C.M.A. No. 4953 of 2010) filed…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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