| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 193 1957 SLD 193 = 1957 PLD 52 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
First Appeal No. 30 of 1955, decided on 16th July 1956.
(Appellate Civil Jurisdiction) Before Constantine and Wahiduddin, JJ
Ali Athar for Appellant. S. Nasiruddin for
Respondent.
First Appeal No. 30 of 1955, decided on 16th July 1956.
(Appellate Civil Jurisdiction) Before Constantine and Wahiduddin, JJ
Ali Athar for Appellant. S. Nasiruddin for
Respondent.
ABUL KHAIR WALIULLAH-Applicant
VERSUS
THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN-Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 80
P L D 1957 (W. P.) Karachi 52 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 80-Notice specifying several reliefs-Suit as lodged containing an additional relief by way of a formal declaration-Provisions of section not carried out-Plaint, however, allowed to be amended so as to delete additional relief to secure agreement between notice and plaint-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. X1, r. 17. A notice under section 80, Civil P. C., served by a civil servant prematurely retired, specified several reliefs, viz., re-instatement, period of forced absence from office being counted towards service, payment of arrears of salary and of compensation for mental worry caused by the wrongful order of early retirement. The suit as lodged contained an additional prayer for a declaration that the order of premature retirement of plaintiff was arbitrary and illegal. Held, that it was clear that the relief of declaration had not been mentioned in the notice and that therefore the provisions of section 80 had not been carried out. Neverthe less, this difficulty could be got over in appeal, since it was a purely technical difficulty, by allowing the appellant to amend his plaint by deletion of this portion of relief from the plaint; that is to say, the formal declaration sought in the plaint alone, was not necessary in order to obtain the other reliefs which the plaintiff had sought and had mentioned both in the notice and in the plaint. JUDGMENT CONSTANTINE , J.---This is a first appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, Muhammad Bakhsh, J. dis posing of the suit of the plaintiff on the preliminary point that since a relief claimed in the plaint had not been mentioned in the notice, under section 80, Civil P. C. the suit was bad. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant had been required by the Post Offce authorities to retire on the ground of superannuation. The appellant claimed that this order was illegal and he claimed consequential reliefs. The notice set out reasons why this order was bad and then in the last paragraph the notice stated :- "That in claiming relief…