Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 113

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R. 11---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3, Schdl. I, Art.113---Suit for specific performance---Suit barred by time---Duty of Court---Scope---Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was a mandatory provision and it made obligatory for the court to look into the question of limitation even when no objection was being raised by a party to the suit---Trial court erred by placing onus to establish that the suit was not maintainable on the ground of limitation, on the defendants---Secondly, court erred in assuming that the question of limitation in the suit fell within the second part of Art.113 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 and limitation would begin to run from when the performance of the agreement was refused as opposed to the date for performance fixed by the Agreement---Appeal was dismissed with costs. Noor Muhammad v. Additional District judge Gojra 2004 MLD 1321 and Nawab Din v. Muhammad Hussain 2004 CLC 269 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R. 11---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Shed. I, Art. 113---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 118 119---Suit for specific performance, rejection of---Question of limitation, nature of---Duty of court---Scope---Court was under obligation to determine the question of maintainability at the outset even without any objection raised by a party---Rules to be followed by Courts to determine the question of maintainability on the ground of limitation enumerated. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art.17 79---Agreement to sell---Proof---Compulsory attestation---Under Art. 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, an agreement pertaining to financial or future obligations, if reduced to writing, must be attested by two men and under S.79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 such agreement could not be used as evidence until two attesting witnesses had been called for the purpose of proving its execution---Proviso to Art. 79 was not relevant to an agreement not being a registered document. Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din PLD 2011 SC 241; Farzand Ali and another v. KhudaBakhsh and others PLD 2015 SC 187 and Muhammad Iqbal Khan v. Ms. Farhat Nisa…

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