| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 555 2015 SLD 555 2015 MLD 1 |
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No. 230 of 2006, decided on 8th September, 2014. DATE of hearing: 5th August, 2014
NADEEM AKHTAR AND SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JJ
K.B. Bhutto for Appellants. Nemo for
Respondents
High Court Appeal No. 230 of 2006, decided on 8th September, 2014. DATE of hearing: 5th August, 2014
NADEEM AKHTAR AND SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JJ
K.B. Bhutto for Appellants. Nemo for
Respondents
Miss AISHA QAYYUM and another
VS
BABY MEHAK alias SAKEENA and 3 others
Law: Fatal Accidents Act, 1855
Section: 1
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXXII,Rr.1,2,3,O.VII,R.1(d),O.XIV,R.1
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 151,5
(a) Fatal Accident Act (XIII of 1855)--- ----S. 1---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.151 & S.5---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXII, Rr. 1, 2, & 3, O. VII, R. 1(d) & O. XIV, R.1---Suit for recovery of compensation amount---Appeal against the decree/order of High Court passed in original jurisdiction---Limitation---Guardian ad litem, appointment of---Procedure---Issue, framing of---Scope---Suit for recovery of compensation amount was decreed ex-parte---Contention of defendant was that she was minor at the time of institution of suit which was filed without appointment of guardian ad litem and no issue was framed therein---Validity---Father of plaintiffs expired due to fatal injuries when he was hit by the trailer owned by the defendant---Driver of trailer was booked for the offence of rash and negligent driving resulting into the death of father of plaintiffs---Ground which could be set up by the defendant was to allege and prove contributory negligence of deceased---Defendant remained away from the proceedings before the Trial Court---Trial Court was left with no alternative but to decree the suit on the basis of averments made in the plaint as well as in affidavit filed in evidence---Plaintiffs were minors at the time of filing of plaint which was mentioned in the title of suit and suit was filed by their next friend---Plaintiffs were not aware of the age of defendant---Present suit was filed on the basis of information obtained from Excise and Taxation Department where no date of birth of defendant was mentioned---Plaintiffs had not concealed the age of defendant who was bound to inform the court about the same---Court should appoint a proper person to be guardian for the suit if defendant was minor but such appointment might be obtained upon application in the name and on behalf of minor or by the plaintiff---If plaintiff was not aware of the age of defendant or had not mentioned that she was minor then an application could be filed on behalf of minor for appointment of guardian ad litem---Only plaintiff was not bound to make such an application but same could also be moved on behalf of minor which was not done by the…
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