| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 155 1956 SLD 155 1956 PLD 1093 |
Lahore High Court
Letters Patent Appeal No. 31 of 1952, decided on 22nd June 1956, in R. S. A. No. 81 of 1951, decided by Shabir Ahmad, J. on 30th April 1952
S. A. RAHMAN, C.J. AND A. R. CHANGEZ, J
Siraj-ud-Din for Appellant. Muhammad Shafi and Syed Ali Shah for
Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 31 of 1952, decided on 22nd June 1956, in R. S. A. No. 81 of 1951, decided by Shabir Ahmad, J. on 30th April 1952
S. A. RAHMAN, C.J. AND A. R. CHANGEZ, J
Siraj-ud-Din for Appellant. Muhammad Shafi and Syed Ali Shah for
Respondent
FIRM MUHAMMAD SADIQ, IMAM DIN
VS
THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 80,OrderVI,17
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: Sch.1,31
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V. of 1908), S. 80-Substantial compliance with section enough-Notice to be read as a whole Notice sent to General Manager, N. W. R. threatening legal proceedings "against you"-Not bad merely on that account. A substantial compliance with section 80, Civil P. C. is sufficient for the validity of the notice which need not be construed strictly like pleadings fit a suit. The object of such a notice is to enable the Government Department concerned to settle the claim, if so advised, out of Court and that object is amply served if the Department is fairly fixed with the knowledge of the nature and particulars of the claim and the claimant. The intention of the giver of the notice can, therefore, be clearly gathered on a reading of the whole document, and a fetish should not be made of a word here or there unhappily chosen by the writer of the notice. Where a notice addressed to General Manager, N. W. R., under section 80, Civil P. C. threatened proceedings "against you :" Held, that the detail about the name of the defendant was not included in the mandatory provisions of section 80, and a liberal interpretation of the notice read as a whole showed that the intention of the giver of the notice was to lodge a suit not against the General Manager personally but against him as representing the Federation of Pakistan the notice was not bad merely on that account. Mrs. A. V. Issacs v. The Federation of Pakistan P L D 1954 Lah. 800 (D B), The Federation of Pakistan v. The Muslim hehari and Wehniwal Bus Service P L D 1955 Lah. 256 (D B), G. G. in Council v. Krishna Shenoy A I R 1951 Mad. 327 (S B), Secretary of State v. Nagorao Tanko Deshmukh A I R 1938 415 (S B), G. G. in Council v. C. Sankarappa A I R 1953 Mad. 838 (S B), Malik Khizar Hayat Khan v. Punjab Province P L D 1955 Lah. 88, (S B), Federation of Pakistan v. Eshan Elahi P L D 1955 Lah. 303 (D B), G. G. in Council v. Amilal A I R 1947 Pat. 81 (S B), Sankunni Menon v. S. I. Railway A I R 1952 Mad. 502 (S B) and Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Iqbal P L D 1953 Lah. 460 (S B) ref. Bhagchand v. Secretary of State for India A I R 1927 P C 176 distinguished. (b) Limitation Act (IX of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492