Case Details

Citation(s)
1965 SLG 4723 = 1965 SLD 4723 = 1965 PLD 364
Dacca High Court
Civil Rule No. 781 of 1962, decided on 6th August 1964.
Presented By: K. M. Hasan, J
R. Sewaram v. Lachminarayan 104 1 C 520; Navalmal v. Mangal Das and another 50 1 C 37; Namdeo and another v. Ramkrishna Mahadeo A I R 1934 Nag. 260 distinguished.   Laxminarayan Nathmal Marwadi v. Shriram Danmal Marwadi A I R 1938 Nag. 286 rel. Syed Muhammad Ali for Petitioner.   Muhammad Latif ur Rahman for the Opposite-Party.

MUMTAZ KHAN-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  Sh. AKBAR ALI-Opposite-Party

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 7,56,102

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908),   Art. 7----Words "for the wages of a household servant, artisan or labourer" mean the wages per day, per week or per month fixed by employer.   (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908),   Arts. 7, 56 & 102-Suit for remuneration for repairing truck by mechanic, engaged on daily wages-Article 56 or Art. 102 applies and not Art. 7.   ORDER This Rule is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned S. C. C. Judge in favour of the plaintiff.   The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's truck was repaired in the workshop of the plaintiff from 25th February 1958, till 24th November 1960. The total cost of the different kinds of the repairs of the truck amounted to Rs. 406.50 out of which Rs. 215.50 was paid by the defendant up to 25th November 1960, but Rs. 191.00 was still due from the defendant in spite of repeated demands.   The defence was a total denial of any liability. The defendant No. 1 further pleaded that the truck did not belong to him but to his wife; that the suit was barred under Article 7 of the Limitation Act and that the suit was instituted out of enmity and grudge.   The learned S. C. C. Judge, on consideration of the evidence, came to the finding that the plaintiff did repair works and other things of the truck belonging to the defendant No. I and in fact Rs. 191.00 was still due and accordingly he decreed suit along with compensation amounting to Rs. 9.00. Hence the present Rule at the instance of the defendant No. 1.   It is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the work done by the plaintiff comes under Article 7 of the Limitation Act and as the suit was not instituted within one year from the date of its due, the claim was barred by limitation. In support he relied on the case of R. Sewaram v. Lachminarayan (104 1 C 520) on the case of Navalmal v. Mangal Das and another (501 C 37) and on the case of Namdeo and another v. Ramkrishna Mahadeo (A I R 1934 Nag. 260).   Article 7 of the Limitation Act provides for one year's time for recovery of wages of a household servant, or an artisan or labourer not provided for by the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register