Case Details

Citation(s)
1958 SLG 4271 = 1958 SLD 4271 = 1958 PLD 141
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Revision Application No. 85 of 1954, decided on 3rd October 1957.
Presented By: INAMULLAH, J.
Muhammad Naseem Saddiqui for Applicant.   Opponent absent.  

Sheikh ABDUL SATTAR-Applicant VersusDOUR MUHAMMAD-Opponent

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 164

Law: Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887)

Section: 17

(a) Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887), S. 17-Party applying under O. IX, r. 13, Civil Procedure Cole (h of 1908) for setting aside ex-parte decree should either deposit decretal amount or Punish security within time specified by Art. 164, Limitation Act (IX of 1908).   If the decretal amount or the security is furnished though not at the time when the application under Order IX, rule 13 Civil P. C. is made for setting aside the ex-parte decree but within the limitation prescribed under Article 164 of the Limitation Act it would be sufficient compliance of the proviso to section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.   deun Muchi v. Budhiram 32 Cal. 339 (342) ; Bashiruddin v. Sonaulla 15 C W N 102 (106), 6 I C 154, Ram Bharose v. Ganga A I R 1931 All. 727 (730) ; Kiran v. Baijnath 51 All. 402 A I R 1928 All. 607 (608) ; Moti Lai v. Durga Prasad 1931 A L J 7, A I R 1930 All. 830 (831), 128 I C 765 ; Haji Ahmad v. Abdulhussein 55 Born. 779, 33 Bom. L R 1433, A I R 1932 Born. 40 (41), 135 I C 465 ; Maniklal v. Khushal 29 N L R 104, 1411 C 813, A I R 1933 Nag. 102 (103) ; Narain v. Pudan 5 Luck. 294, 6 0 W N 1014, A I R 1930 Oudh 1(2), 122 1 C 328 ; Ram Bilas v. Jai Ram 1 Bur. L J 75, A I R 1922 U B 18 (19), 76 I C 863 ; Sitaba v. Mata Din 2 O W N 440, A I R 1925 Oudh 446, 89 I C 442 ; Assan Muhammad v. Rahim Sahib 43 Mad. 579 (584) (F. B.), 38 M L J 539, 55 I C 977 rel.   Ramaswami v. Kurisu 13 Mad. 178 (188); Mukandi Lai v. Pars Ram 1919 P L R 19, 50 1 C 917; Muhammad Fazal Ali v. Karim Khan, 108 P R 1894 (overruling Gobind v. Mohan 5 P R 1894); Akula Achaiah v. Challapali Lakshrriinarasimharn 53 I C 926, 37 M L J 433, Suryanarayana v. Soundaraja 55 I C 618, Gedi Mal v. Huna Mal 12 Lah. 359, 32 P L R 504, A I R 1931 Lah. 332 (334), 1311 C 635 (F B) ; Jogi Ahir v. Bishen Dayal 18 Cal. 83 (85) ; Jagannath v. Chet Ram 28 All. 470 ; Chhotey Lal v. Lakhmi Chand 38 All. 425 (429), 34 I C 113 ; Sri Bhagawat v. Balkaram 20 A L J 209 ; A I R 1922 All. 29 (30), 651 C 596; Ahmad Khan v. Ali 1930 A L J 1494, 130 1 C 710, A I R 1931 All. 103 (104) ; Somabhai v. Wadilal 9 Born. L R 883 ; Umrao Jiwan v. Monnumian 2 N L R 23 ; Chandulal v.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register