| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 336 2021 SLD 336 2021 YLR 141 |
Sindh High Court
Judicial Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2019, decided on 5-05-2020, Date of hearing: 13-02-2020.
ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
Nadir Khan Burdi for Applicant. Ms. Saima Jamil for
Respondent No.1. Nemo for
Respondent No. 2.
Judicial Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2019, decided on 5-05-2020, Date of hearing: 13-02-2020.
ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
Nadir Khan Burdi for Applicant. Ms. Saima Jamil for
Respondent No.1. Nemo for
Respondent No. 2.
ALHABIB CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR
VS
MRS.SHAMIM BARLAS AND ANOTHER
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 12(2)
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 181,18,5
Law: Cooperative Societies Act, 1925
Section: 54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 12(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181 Ss. 5 18---Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925), S.54---Ex-parte decree, setting aside of---Limitation---Fraud and misrepresentation--Effect---Contention of applicant-Society was that impugned and decree had been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation---Validity---Address of applicant-Society provided in the plaint was incorrect and summons returned unserved Society was never served with summons of the suit had suppressed documents from the Court and impugned and decree were result of fraud and misrepresentation--- Limitation for application under S.12(2) of C.P.C. would be governed by Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908 which did provide a period of three years from the date when a right to apply did accrue---Right to apply would accrue when the impugned and decree were passed---Where applicant had established that he was prevented by fraud from acting earlier, then S.18 of Limitation Act, 1908, would come to his aid to make limitation run from the date when fraud became known to him was entitled to the benefit of S.18 of Limitation Act, 1908 and present application was within time---Impugned and decree were set aside and suit was restored---Application for setting aside of ex-parte decree was allowed, in circumstances. Rahimbhoy Habibbhoy v. Charles Agnew Turner (1893) 17 Bom. 341; Biman Chandra Datta v. Promotha Nath Ghose AIR 1922 Cal 157; Bhagwana v. Shadi AIR 1934 Lahore 878; Asanulla Fakir v. Jogandara Nath Sarkar PLD 1961 Dacca 703 and Najmul Haq Faraji v. Panchanan Poddar PLD 1968 Dacca 887 rel. ORDER ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE:---.--- By this application under section 12(2) C.P.C., Al-Habib Cooperative Housing Society, acting through its Administrator, has challenged the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 09-05-2008 passed in Suit No. 424/2006 whereby the Respondent was awarded damages as prayed, amounting to Rs. 100 million along with 14% markup, as against the said Society. 2. In the suit, the Respondent/ Plaintiff averred that on 26-05-1986 she had been allotted a plot measuring 400 square yards (suit plot) by Al-Habib Cooperative Housing Society (theβ¦
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