Case Details

Citation(s)
1951 SLG 115 1951 SLD 115 1951 PLD 195
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 93 of 1948, decided on 16th November 1950 from the order of S3nior Sub-Judge, Sheikhupura, dated 20th January 1948.
MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD KHURSHID ZAMAN, JJ.
Mian Muhammad Fazil, for Appellant. Syed Jamil Hussain, for
Respondent.

MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SheikhuPura

VS

PUNJAB PROVINCE

Law:

Section:

(a) Limitation--Plea of-Can only be set up as bar to a claim-Suit for declaration that remedy against plaintiff having become barred by time, plaintiff's liability has disappeared-Not competent, except in case covered by S. 28, Limitation Act (IX of 1908). It is an elementary principle of law that limitation can only be set up as a bar to a claim and that by itself it furnishes no cause of action to a party except where section 28 of the Limita­tion Act is applicable and the party in possession of a property has acquired a prescriptive title to it. In such exceptional cases threatened dispossession or actual dispossession of the party who has prescribed for the requisite period may constitute a good cause of action for that party. But where, section 28 is not applicable, a party cannot sue for a declaration that the remedy against him having become barred by time, his liability has disappeared or that he has been legally invested with a right and that what was wrongful before the period of limitation had run out has become lawful after the expiration of that period. This result follows from the rule that statutes of limitation being processual enact­ments assume the existence of a cause of action and do not define or create it. A debt is not extinguished merely by the period of limitation having run 'out and, though the remedy may be barred, the debt exists. The law of limitation is a rule of procedure and does not create or extinguish rights except in the case of acquisition of title to immovable property by prescription under section 28 of the Limitation Act and that though the remedy may be barred, the right itself continues to exist, and if there be any other remedy by which that right can be enforced, the Limitation Act cannot come in the way. A. I. R. 1939 Bom. 494 rel. I. L. R. 33 Mad. 308 ; 147 P. R. 1890 (F. B.) ref. (b) Punjab Municipal pal Act (III of 1911), Ss. 80 (1) (2) (3), 81­---Modes of recovery of arrear of tax--Period of Limitation for each mode---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Sch.I Arts. 120, 132,181. There is nothing in the Punjab Municipal Act to prevent the recovery of a tax by a Municipal Committee by a regular suit. Be­sides that mode of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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