Law:

Section:

(a) Jurisdiction--- ----Primary duty of court that it should first assume jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Good faith, due diligence, utmost care and caution were mix questions of facts and law and could only be decided by recording of evidence. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 10---Limitation---Exclusion of time of proceedings---Bona fide consumption of time in court having no jurisdiction could only be proved through actions---Filing of plaint before a court of competent jurisdiction would be continuity of previous suit. Mst. Anwar Bibi and others v. Abdul Hameed 2002 SCMR 144; Princess Zohra Bakhte v. Shaukat Ali Khan and another 1988 CLC 332; Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Messrs Fatima Sugar Mills Ltd. and 2 others PLD 2011 Kar. 426 and Mst. Khadija Begum and 2 others v. Mst. Yasmeen and 4 others PLD 2001 SC 355 ref. and rel. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revision---Scope---If concurrent findings were result of misreading and non-reading of evidence or jurisdictional defect, same can be corrected while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial, Board of Revenue and others 2014 SCMR 914 rel. JUDGMENT ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.--- This Regular Second Appeal calls in question the validity of judgment and decree dated 21-6-2003 and 6-10-1987, whereby the learned courts below allowed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. and rejected the plaint, being barred by time. 2. Shortly, the facts for the disposal of this appeal are, that the appellant instituted a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.3,33,543/99 against the respondent, on the ground, that the Federal Government acquired a project, wherein the petitioner had 85112 shares and it was agreed, that the certificate of entitlement to compensation of the aforesaid amount of the shares will be given. Subsequently, it was agreed, that Rs.600,000 would be adjusted at the cost of the transformers against the amount due from the respondent to the appellant, whereas remaining amount of Rs.3,33,543.99 would be adjusted…

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