| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2802 = 1962 SLD 2802 = 1962 PLD 271 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 83 of 1959, decided on 18th January 1962.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmad, J
Noorul Arfin and Naimuddin for Plaintiffs. S. Hamid Hussain for Defendant No. 3 in Suit 83/59. Nemo for Defendant in Suit 206/59 (O. S.) Dates of hearing:18th, 19th and 20th October 1961 and 19th December 1961.
Suit No. 83 of 1959, decided on 18th January 1962.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmad, J
Noorul Arfin and Naimuddin for Plaintiffs. S. Hamid Hussain for Defendant No. 3 in Suit 83/59. Nemo for Defendant in Suit 206/59 (O. S.) Dates of hearing:18th, 19th and 20th October 1961 and 19th December 1961.
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN-Plaintiff
VERSUS
S. A. SATTAR AND OTHERS-Defendants
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O. XXXIV, r. 14
Decree-Court not to grant decrees for larger amount than due leaving it to decree-holder to act judicially. Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 43 --Denial of receipt of consideration by one of the executants of instrument-Does not eliminate his liability to pay amount due on instrument to endorsee. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIV, r. 14 Applicable only when plaintiff first obtains decree "for payment in satisfaction of a claim arising under mortgage"-Suit not for recovery of money in satisfaction of claim under mortgage but based on separate promissory notes-Rule 14 not applicable. Puran Chand v. Har Parshad A I R 1935 Lah. 672 distinguished. Umeshwar Prasad Sinha v. Dwarika Prasad A I R 1944 Pat. 5; Mehr Bakhsh v. Sanjha Khan A I R 1916 Lah. 196 and Durga Prasad v. Mst. Tulsa Kuar A I R 1939 All. 579 ref. Chief Court of Sind Rules (O. S.), rr. 243 & 244-Rules to be read together-Effect-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. II, r. 2. Rules 243 and 244 of the Chief Court of Sind Rules (O. S.) should be read together. It becomes clear by reading them together that several plaints can be filed to support an originating summons or any proceedings thereunder and that several summons may be taken out relating to the same estate or trust. It is not correct to say on the basis of Rule 244 of the Rules that Order II, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 does not apply to a case in which the plaintiff at the time of filing a regular suit has omitted to sue in respect of or intentionally relinquished a portion of his claim. Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 68 (2)-Suit not a claim for recovery of mortgage money-Does not fall under subsection (2). Nityananda Ghose v. Rajpur Chhaya Beni Cinema Ltd. A I R 1935 Cal. 208 rel. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. II, r. 2-Equitable mortgages-Memorandum of mortgages containing statement that equitable mortgages were created "for purposes of all the loans and advances made or which may hereafter be made"-Mortgages, held created floating securities meant to be useful for outstanding debts-Creditor securing…