Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLD 706 = 1992 CLC 22
High Court (AJ&K)
Civil Revision No.53 of 1980, decided on 14th February 1981
Presented By: Before Sardar Muhammad Sharif Khan, Actg. C J
Muhammad Nawaz Khan and Atta Ellahi fo: Petitioner. Sardar Khan for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN .Petitioner

VERSUS

Mst. MANSOORA BEGUM--- Respondent

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 14

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 151 , 115

  Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 14---Condonation of delay---Essential---Time spent in proceedings before a wrong Court---Remedy  Provision of S.14, Limitation Act, 1908, being a mandatory provision of law, its benefit could be given to a party concerned on a mere reference to the subject-matter contained therein which would be sufficient for the Court to consider the same as being duty bound, even though S.14, Limitation Act, 1908, was not specifically mentioned by the party concerned, there being no separate application for the purpose  Plaintiff having been pursuing proceedings before District Judge and High Court under bona fide mistake of law, period of limitation should have been reckoned afresh and delay should have been condoned. Civil Proceedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 151 & 115  Dismissal of suit for non-deposit of proclamation fee and for non appearance of plaintiff  Suit was restored by Trial Court by giving plaintiff benefit of S.14, Limitation Act, 1908 relating to condonation of delay m filing application for restoration of suit---Validity---Trial Court having acted in accordance with law by restoring suit; its conclusions were correct-- Anything done against provision of law could be looked into under S.151, C.P.C. and Trial Court was correct in setting aside earlier order of dismissal of suit and restoring the same  Order of restoration of suit was maintained and Trial Court was directed to expedite its disposal in accordance. with law. Muhammad Nawaz Khan and Atta Ellahi fo: Petitioner. Sardar Khan for Respondent. ORDER   This revision petition is directed against order dated 28-5-1980 passed by the Sub-Judge, Dhirkote whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was restored for its trial according to law. The counsel for the parties were heard. During the course of the suit it so happened that the trial Court ordered the plaintiff through the counsel for the counsel of the appellant to make a deposit of proclamation fee so as to get a notice published in some newspaper for information of the defendant-petitioner in order to attend the Court to put up his defence. But no advertisement fee…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register