Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 2877 2024 SLD 2877 2024 CLC 357
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi
R.F.A. No.51 of 2023, decided on 13th February, 2023.
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf and Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, JJ
Muhammad Asghar Gondal for Applicant/Appellant.

AYAZ MEHMOOD----Appellant

VERSUS

MUSADAQ RIAZ and 2 others----Respondents

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5,14

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 10

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Ss. 5 & 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R. 10---Pursuing case before wrong forum/Court---Condonation of delay---"Sufficient cause"---Due diligence and good faith---Initial burden---Scope---Suit instituted by the plaintiff (appellant) was dismissed by the Civil Court, however, Instead of filing appeal before the High Court, he filed appeal before the District Court which remained pending for about one year and finally the appeal was returned under O.VII, R.10 of C.P.C.---Appellant/plaintiff while preferring appeal before the High / Appellate Court also moved an application for excluding the period of pursing the remedy before the District Court---Validity ---Where the plaint was returned under O.VII, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for its representation before the Court of competent jurisdiction, for all intent and purposes, it would be treated as a fresh institution---Application for excluding the period of pursing the remedy before the Court lacking jurisdiction, in the present case, was instituted under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 ('the Limitation Act') which required a litigant to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the stipulated time period--- In order to establish "sufficient cause", there was no mathematical formula or hard and fast rule that could be followed, however, although S.14 of the Limitation Act had no direct application to the appeals but the principles enumerated therein could be taken into the consideration by the (Appellate) Court while ascertaining the availability of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay---Section 14 of the Limitation Act reflected that it was incumbent upon the litigant, seeking exclusion of time period for pursuing remedy in forum without jurisdiction, to plead the facts to justify the grant of relief and by reasonably demonstrating due diligence and good faith in pursuing the matter before the Court having no jurisdiction to adjudicate---Initial burden, to show the said elements for seeking to exclude the period consumed in prosecuting case before the forum without…
🔒
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