Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 34 , 1

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section:

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section:

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, , R.1 & S.34---Suit for recovery of amount---Rate of interest not mentioned in plaint---Document on basis of which, plaintiff claimed rate of interest showed that something having already been typed was erased and a particular figure had been typed over the same---Inference from such erasing would arise that rate of interest was subsequently typed---No other corroborative proof of rate of interest being available on record no other option was available but to accept admission of defendant regarding rate of interest. Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---. ----Art. 34---Admission---Effect---Defendant in his written statement having admitted signing of documents pertaining to letter of lien and guarantee for advance, his legal representatives were liable for the same. Messrs United Bank Ltd. v. President, Bazme Salat and another P L D 1986 Kar. 464 ref. Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Art. 57 & S.19---Suit for recovery of money lent---Limitation---Suit for recovery of money lent could ordinarily be filed within three years, from the date when money was lent---Defendant, however, in his letters of acknowledgement had prayed for the extension of time---Acknowledgement of liability `in defendant's last letter having been written on 8-9-1971, suit filed on 28-3-1974, was well within time.---[Limitation]. Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Art. 57---Suit for recovery of money lent---Failure of plaintiff to realize security in time---Effect---Defendants had pledged their shares which they possessed in their factory---Plaintiff, however, failed to sell those shares in the market when they had a market value and were saleable---Such shares, however, lost their value and became unsaleable after the fall of East Pakistan, which event took place after more than three   years after the said transfer of shares in plaintiffs name, yet the bank remained indifferent in this behalf---Defendants were thus entitled to adjustment of the market value of those shares against their liabilities---Plaintiff would, therefore, be entitled to recover only the amount after adjustment of the value of those shares, if any such…