Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 914 2020 SLD 914 2020 CLD 740
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No. 338 of 2009, heard on 2nd March, 2020, Date of hearing: 2nd March, 2020.
SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE RASAAL HASAN SYED, JUSTICE
Zain Qazi for Appellants. Nemo for
Respondents.

MESSRS TAUNSA GYPSUM (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS

VS

HABIB BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 14

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 14---Filing of suit in wrong forum---Principle---Provisions of S. 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 were not applicable where a party claimed that suit was filed in good faith before a court which due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction could not grant relief. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9 & 22---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 14 & Art. 120---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R. 17 & O. XLI, R. 23---Amendment in plaint---Pecuniary jurisdiction, change in---Limitation---Plaintiff, a customer was aggrieved of unauthorized debit of foreign currency by defendant Bank from his account---During pendency of suit, plaintiff amended his plaint due to which value of suit increased and same resulted in change of forum---Suit pending before Banking Court was transferred to High Court in its banking jurisdiction and it was dismissed by Single Judge in High Court being barred by limitation---Validity---Held, such was a case where suit was filed in Banking Court keeping in view original valuation of suit as Banking Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide suit---Valuation for jurisdiction was modified only when amendment in plaint was allowed---Amended value exceeded pecuniary jurisdiction which necessitated return of plaint for presentation to court which would have jurisdiction keeping in view amended valuation of suit---Neither S. 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 had application nor circumstances attracted its application to facts of case---No reason existed to move application for exclusion of period consumed in proceedings before Banking Court---Division Bench of High Court set aside and decree passed by Single Judge of High Court as suit was instituted within six years hence issue of limitation was based on misreading of record, misinterpretation and misapplication of law---Division Bench remanded case to Single Judge under O. XLI, R. 23, C.P.C. as findings on other issues were not recorded and suit was dismissed on preliminary point of limitation---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Laloo and another v. Ghulaman 2000 SCMR 1058 rel. JUDGMENT RASAAL…
🔒
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