Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 1

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5

  Civil Procedure Code (Y of 1908)--- ----O.XLI, R. 1---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Filing  of  appeal  beyond  period  of  limitation ---Effect---Condonation of delay in filing appeal should be for lawful reasons---Even a void decree had to be challenged within limitation---Mere assertion that impugned judgment and decree was void would not make such a decree void; without crossing bar of limitation, person affected was not entitled to challenge legality of the decree passed in the mains suit---Reasons mentioned in application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal, being insufficient were rightly repelled by the First Appellate Court for lawful reasons---Legality of reasons recorded for dismissal of application for condonation of delay, having not been challenged, petitioner could not be allowed to raise plea of voidness of decree in support of his revision---Appeal was rightly dismissed for having been filed beyond period of limitation. Hussain Bux and others v. Settlement Commissioner and another PLD 1969 Lah. 1039; Syed Mahmud Alam v. Syed Mehdi Hussain and 2 others PLD 1970 Lah. 6 and Sultan Ahmad v. Ghulam Muhammad Awan etc., PLD 1987 Lah. 663 ref. Basharat Hussain v. Ghulam Hussain 1978 SCMR 357 rel. Tort---- ----Damages---Suit for payment of damages arising out of filing of a civil suit--Plaintiff had to allege false and malicious prosecution of the suit as also sufferance of special damages, as a result thereof. [p. 579] B   Ah Fond v. Nam Kee AIR 1934 Nag. 75 ref. Abdur Rashid Khan for Petitioners. ORDER Inayat Ali, respondent, of this Civil revision filed a suit for payment of damages against the petitioners, on account of filing of a frivolous suit against him which was dismissed and no appeal was filed there against. It is alleged in the plaint that on account of the said litigation, the respondent suffered mental torture, loss of business and also had to incur expenses of counsel fee etc. Muhammad Ashraf and others, the petitioners in the Civil revision contested the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by time; that the plaintiff has no cause of action and that the plaintiff is not…