| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2203 2015 SLD 2203 2015 MLD 965 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 607 of 2012, decided on 8th September, 2014., DATE of hearing: 26th August, 2014.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J
Saleemuz-Zaman and Muhammad Ali Jan for Plaintiff. Farooq Hashim for Defendants Nos. 1 ad 2. Saleemuz-Zaman for Defendants Nos. 3 and 4.
Suit No. 607 of 2012, decided on 8th September, 2014., DATE of hearing: 26th August, 2014.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J
Saleemuz-Zaman and Muhammad Ali Jan for Plaintiff. Farooq Hashim for Defendants Nos. 1 ad 2. Saleemuz-Zaman for Defendants Nos. 3 and 4.
Dr. DILNAWAZ RAFI SHAIKH and 3 others--Plaintiffs
VS
RIYAZ UR RAHIM and 3 others----Defendants
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11, O. VI, Rr. 14 & 15 & O. III, R. 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Plaint, rejection of---Scope---"Term barred by law "occurring in O.VII, R.11(d), C.P.C.---Scope---Defective plaint---Rectification---Scope---Contention of defendants was that plaint had neither been signed nor verified by the authorized person---Validity---Procedural formality or requirement could be allowed to be rectified if same were not restricted by law or had created certain legal rights in claim of rival party---Clause (b) and (c) of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. were with regard to procedural requirements---Plaint should not be rejected due to such situation unless plaintiff had failed to make compliance despite specific direction---Plaint failing to spell out a cause of action or being barred by law should be rejected under Cl. (a) or (d) of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Term 'barred by law' should not be available where there was a technical error, defect or irregularity which even if allowed to be corrected would not cause prejudice to other side rather same would make things straight for proper adjudication---Provisions of O.VI, Rr. 14 & 15, C.P.C. were directory in nature as no penal consequences in the event of failure to make compliance of such provisions had been provided---Object of such provisions was to make clear for the other party as to what was based on personal information of person, signing and verifying or what he had believed to be true---Procedural provision which carried no penal consequence could not result into considering the same as 'incurable'---Omission to verify or defective verification was a mere irregularity not affecting the merits which could be cured at subsequent stage---Curable irregularity should not be confused with the term 'barred by law'---Defective plaint with regard to power of attorney could be rectified by the principal---Plaintiff had placed on record the copy of power of attorney and he had rectified and reaffirmed the status of the person who had signed and verified the pleadings; defect if any, which had caused no prejudice to the defendants stood…
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