Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 96

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of damages--- Appeal--- Limitation---Condonation of delay---Contention of plaintiff was that defendant had violated terms and conditions of contract---Defendant adjusted security amount deposited by the plaintiff against outstanding amount due against the plaintiff---Suit was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Defendant had neither given any particular of outstanding amount in his written statement nor given any break-up about the said outstanding---No documentary evidence had been produced by the defendant to the extent of his claim of outstanding amount---Reason given in the application for condonation of delay that time was spent in obtaining sanction for filing of appeal was not supported by any document---Said reason was not sufficient within the meaning of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908---Trial Court passed impugned and decree on 28.05.2012 and defendant applied for certified copy on 10-07-2012 which was provided on 31-08-2012---Appeal filed by the defendant before the Appellate Court was barred by time---Defendant had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned s and decrees passed by the Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. JUDGMENT ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.--- This Civil Revision Petition in terms of section 115 of The Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) (hereinafter referred as C.P.C.) arises out of order dated 24.03.2014 (hereinafter the impugned Judgment) passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Quetta, (hereinafter the appellate Court) while dismissing the appeal under section 96, C.P.C. filed by the appellant upheld the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge-II, Quetta. 2. Epitomized facts necessary for adjudication of instant petition are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration, and permanent injunction and recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- as damages before the learned Civil Judge-II, Quetta, against the petitioner/defendants with the averments that the plaintiff/respondent has a registered…

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