Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 287 1974 SLD 287 1974 PLD 174
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. K-58 of 1965 and K-32 of 1972, decision dated: 21st January 1974
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND ANWARUL HAQ, JJ
Nasir A. Zahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Nizam Ahmad, Advocate instructed by Mujahid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in both Appeals). Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court (Karachi)

Messrs M. G. KADIR & Co.

VS

ABDUL LATIF

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-0. IX, rr. 8 & 9-Suit, dismissal of, for non-appearance of plaintiff­. Suit restored by Court on its satisfaction about there being sufficient cause for non-appearance-Held : Such discretionary order ordinarily does not call for interference by Supreme Court. An order passed by the High Court in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction restoring a suit, an appeal or an application dismissed in default does not ordinarily call for interference by the Supreme Court. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)- S.19-Limitation-Extension of period of-Object and scope of S. 19-Acknowledgment of liability-In reply, to letter of demand by creditor, debtor writing "you are no doubt correct in stating that there is a credit balance of Rs. 20,500 in your personal account in my books" but at the same time debtor claiming a set-off-Writing by debtor, held, amounted to unequivocal admission of existing liability-Limitation for recovery consequently extended under S. 19 for three years from date on which letter was written. The primary ingredient of section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is admission of an existing liability and jural relationship of debtor and creditor. Cases in which words used in the writing are ambiguous or in which admission is to be ascertained from words which are veiled in appear­ance but their meanings can be spelt out with reference to extraneous facts may present difficulty. But where in reply to the creditors' demand for the return of the sum advanced as loan, the debtor had stated "you are no doubt correct in stating that there is a credit balance of Rs. 20,500 in your personal account in my books" but at the same time wrote "you are no doubt aware . . . I have not seen an audit report of these accounts", it was held by the Supreme Court that the letter contained unequivocal admission of an existing liability to pay Rs. 20,500 and the period of limitation to bring the suit for recovery of the sum was consequently extended under section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for three years from the date on which that letter was written. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD YAQuB ALI, J.-These two appeals arise out. of the suit filed by…
🔒
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