| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2899 2024 SLD 2899 2024 CLC 524 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.176407 of 2018, heard on 24th October, 2023.Date of hearing: 24th October, 2023.
Before Shahid Bilal Hassan, J
Rana Muhammad Naeem Khan for Petitioners. Muhammad Imran Bhatti for
Respondents Nos.2(i) to 2(vi), 3 and 6. Ansar Mehdi Qureshi for
Respondent No.4. Qamar Zaman Qureshi, Additional Advocate General Punjab.
Civil Revision No.176407 of 2018, heard on 24th October, 2023.Date of hearing: 24th October, 2023.
Before Shahid Bilal Hassan, J
Rana Muhammad Naeem Khan for Petitioners. Muhammad Imran Bhatti for
Respondents Nos.2(i) to 2(vi), 3 and 6. Ansar Mehdi Qureshi for
Respondent No.4. Qamar Zaman Qureshi, Additional Advocate General Punjab.
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others----Petitioners
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Additional Collector and others----Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 17,1,2
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 3
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VI, R.17---Amendment of pleadings---Principle---Where defect can be remedied by allowing amendments, Court should liberally exercise such powers but within the parameters prescribed by O.VI, R.17, C.P.C.---While exercising such powers Court must identify defect and record its satisfaction that the defect is formal and does not go to root of the case. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXIII, Rr. 1 & 2---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Withdrawal of suit---Filing of fresh suit---Principle---Limitation, principle of---Applicability---Suit filed earlier by petitioner / plaintiff was withdrawn with permission to file fresh suit---Subsequent suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was rejected by Trial Court as well as by Lower Appellate Court as the same was barred by limitation---Validity---If permission was granted for filing a fresh suit under O. XXIII, R.1, C.P.C., then, pursuant to O. XXIII, R. 2, petitioner / plaintiff was bound by law of limitation in the same manner as if the first suit had not been filed---No fresh cause of action would accrue from the date when such permission was granted by the Court---Language used in S. 3 of Limitation Act, 1908 was mandatory in nature and had imposed duty upon Court to dismiss suit instituted after expiry of period provided unless plaintiff seeked exclusion of time by pleading in plaint one of the grounds provided in Ss. 4 to 25 of Limitation Act, 1908---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Saeed Bacha and another v. Late Badshah Amir and others 2011 SCMR 345; Haji Abdul Karim and others v. Messrs Florida Builders (Pvt.) Limited PLD 2012 SC 247; Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmad and others PLD 1985 SC 153; Ahsan Ali and others v. District Judge and others PLD 1969 SC 167; Asad Ali v. Bank of Punjab PLD 2020 SC 736; Ghulam Qadir v. Abdul Wadood PLD 2016 SC 712; Abdul Sattar v. Federation of Pakistan 2013 SCMR 911;…
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