| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 2495 2020 SLD 2495 2020 CLC 1989 |
Islamabad High Court
R.F.A. No. 74 of 2014, decided on 3rd December, 2019, Dateof hearing: 22nd October, 2019.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Muhammad Saleem and Birjis Rizvi for Appellants.
R.F.A. No. 74 of 2014, decided on 3rd December, 2019, Dateof hearing: 22nd October, 2019.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Muhammad Saleem and Birjis Rizvi for Appellants.
RAFAQAT HUSSAIN RAJA AND OTHERSVSMUJIB-UR-REHMAN KIANI
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R.2---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.28---Money Suit---Claim for damages due to false allegations and distress---Limitation---Proof of allegations---Requirements---Suit was decreed by the Trial Court---Validity---Plaintiff had appeared as a sole witness and had not produced any independent evidence to substantiate his allegations---Plaintiff had not produced any witness before whom allegation had been made by the defendants---Trial Court while passing decree against the defendants had violated the settled norms of justice---Plaintiff had produced prescription before the Trial Court but author of the same had not been examined---Said prescription had not been formally exhibited and no evidentiary value could be given to the same---Plaintiff had to establish that defendants had acted in a calculated manner with malice and bad intent to cause him physical and mental injury---Plaintiff had failed to discharge the said burden to justify his claim for damages against the defendants---Bare allegations of malice and prejudice could not be made the yardstick for award of damages---Suit for compensation for illegal, irregular or excessive stress should have been filed within one year from the date of stress---Present suit was time barred, in circumstances---Plaintiff had failed to prove allegations against the defendants and impugned decree was not sustainable---Impugned and decree passed by the Trial Court were set aside and suit was dismissed---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2009 SC 879 ref. Ahmed Hassan v. Muhammad Arshad 2016 PLC (C.S.) 845 and Shazia Qamar v. Bashira Bibi 2016 CLC 15 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.144---Restitution---Scope. Restitution of property follows automatically upon the decree being varied or reversed in appeal and a specific direction for restitution is not necessary to be made by the appellate Court. Restitution of possession to a party who succeeds in getting an adverse order reversed in appeal is nothing more than retracing the steps to nullify the proceedings whereby the party who was not entitled…
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