Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 1798 2000 SLD 1798 2000 CLC 285
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No.244 of 1982, decision dated: 22-07-1999
NASIM SIKANDAR, J
Sh. Naveed Sheharyar for Appellant. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad for
Respondent

MANZOOR HUSSAIN

VS

WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore

Law:

Section:

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------Preamble---Omni bus or residuary Articles to the Limitation Act, 1908--­Applicability---Principle---Where a particular Article of Limitation Act, 1908, was attracted, resort to omnibus and residuary Article could not be made. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 36 cases of malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance independent of contract---Limitation---Plaintiff claimed damages for electricution of his two buffaloes clue to negligence on the part of the defendant to keep in proper maintenance of electric installations wherefrom electricity was being supplied to general consumers--Suit for damages was filed after three years of the incident---Validity---Suit was covered by Art.36 of Limitation Act, 1908 and a period of two years was provided from the moment an injury on the basis of malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance took place---Suit filed beyond two years was barred by limitation. Abdul Majeed Butt v. United Chemicals Ltd. PLD 1970 Lah. 298 distinguished. JUDGMENT On 31-10-1978, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.14,000 before the Civil Court at Mandi Baha-ud-Din alleging electricution of his two buffaloes due to negligence of the defendant WAPDA. The recovery was based on his claim that the respondent WAPDA had failed to maintain the electrical installation including poles etc., and therefore, he had to sustain to aforesaid loss. After framing the issues and recording evidence, the Civil Court on 9-12-1980 decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.10,000. Earlier, the objection that the suit was barred by time was rejected. The defendant had claimed that the buffalos were allegedly electricuted on 121.6-1975 while the suit was filed after more-than three years on 31-10-1978. According to them it should have been filed within three years of the incident. The trial Court did not agree with the defendant that the suit of the plaintiff was governed by Article 49 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Instead it was held that no specific article having provided for the situation before him, the residuary Article 120 of the said Act applied which provided for a limitation of six years. Therefore, the…
🔒
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