Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLD 771 = 1998 CLC 2023
Sindh High Court
First Civil Appeal No.2 of 1996, decided on 21st March, 1997.
Presented By: Before Abdul Hameed Dogar, J
S. Manzar Alam for Appellants. M.A. Rashid for
Respondents.

Messrs MEHRAN TRADERS---Appellant

VERSUS

Messrs       WELLCOME       PAKISTAN       LIMITED, KARACHI---Respondent

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 97

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----S.  97---Preliminary  decree---Not  appealed against---Effect---Appellants had not preferred appeal against preliminary decree---Held: Appellants were competent to question the validity of the final decree even if they had not preferred appeal against the preliminary decree which otherwise was not a complete one. PLD 1984 SC 208; PLD 1972 Lah. 187; 1996 SCMR 763 and PLD 1967 Kar. 136 ref. Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.)--- ----Rr. 323 & 331---Pasting of copies for delivery on Notice Board--Contention that Record Keeper was bound to paste the copies for delivery on the Notice Board in the office had no force---Rule 331 provided that list of copies and translation ready for delivery shall be pasted on the Notice Board---Since copies were not ready for delivery for want of stamp, it would not be included in the list under the Rule. Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 12---Time requisite for obtaining copies---Exclusion of ---Conditions-- Where delay caused was because of circumstances over which applicant had no control and which could not, by due diligence, be avoided, would be condoned and excluded---Where no such circumstances had either been mentioned or agitated in the appeal, delay, held, could not form part of time requisite for obtaining copies.   Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 12(2)---Time requisite for obtaining copies---If there was delay in depositing and delivering the stamps and folios after notification such delay could not be taken advantage of by a prospective appellant or applicant, as the time taken could not be said to be the time requisite for obtaining copy of order or decree under S.12(2)---Fact that the appellant or applicant had made a delayed deposit and the Court had accepted the delayed deposit instead of rejecting the application, did not make any difference. Mst. Jamila Khatoon and another v. Mst. Tajunissa and others PLD 1984 SC 208 and State of W.B. v. Midnapore Commercial Co. Ltd. AIR 1978 Cal. 358 rel. Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 12---Expression "time requisite" appearing in S.12---Connotation.-- [Words and phrases]. S. Manzar Alam for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register