| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 409 1956 SLD 409 = 1956 PLD 431 |
Supreme Appellate Court, Pakistan
Constitutional Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1955, decided on 1st November 1956. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature (now West Pakistan High Court) at Lahore, dated the 8th October 1954 (P L D 1954 Lah. 803) in Regular First Appeal No. 44 of 1951, and Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 135/C of 1954, dated the 30th May 1955).
(Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: Muhammad Munir, C. J., M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ
S. A. Mahmud, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed, by Iftikhar-ud-lain, Attorney for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad. Iqbal Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney for
Respondent.
Constitutional Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1955, decided on 1st November 1956. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature (now West Pakistan High Court) at Lahore, dated the 8th October 1954 (P L D 1954 Lah. 803) in Regular First Appeal No. 44 of 1951, and Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 135/C of 1954, dated the 30th May 1955).
(Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: Muhammad Munir, C. J., M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ
S. A. Mahmud, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed, by Iftikhar-ud-lain, Attorney for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad. Iqbal Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney for
Respondent.
THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN--Appellant
VERSUS
MRS. A. V. ISAACS-Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 80
Law: Government of India Act, 1935
Section: 240(3)
P L D 1956 Supreme Court (Pak.) 431 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 80-Variation in reliefs asked for in notice and plaint-How far permissible Necessary conditions for validity of notice. Where a specific amount of money is claimed in a notice under section 80 of the Civil P. C., a decree for a larger amount on the same cause of action cannot be asked for, but it is not possible to accept the general proposition that should a parti cular relief asked for in the notice be found by the Court not to be competent or appropriate in law, no relief in substitution can be granted by the Court in the absence of a fresh notice formally claiming that relief. What has to be seen in such cases is whether the party suing is the party who sent the notice, whether the cause of action on which the suit is founded is the same as was disclosed in the notice and whether the plaintiff indicated in the notice the relief which he thought he was entitled to on the strength of that cause of action. If the notice contains these three matters it complies with the law even though at the trial of the suit the Court might come to the conclusion that the relief that was asked' for in the notice is not the proper relief to be granted and that the plaintiff is entitled to some other relief which was not claimed in the notice. Where in a suit, for arrears of pay and future salary, by a civil servant, founded on wrongful discharge from service relief by way of a declaration as' the invalidity of the order of discharge was also prayed for, which relief had' found no mention in the police served under section 80; Civil P. C. Held, that the cause of action alleged in the suit not being different from 'that stated in the notice and because under the law the claim for damages or future salary was not competent and the true relief to which' the plaintiff was entitled in such cases was that of a declaration that the order of dismissal was void, the suit could not fail merely because the relief for a declaration was not demanded by the notice. Government of India Act, 1935----S. 240(3) [Constitu tion of Pakistan…