| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2770 2004 SLD 2770 2004 PLD 551 |
Sindh High Court
R.A. No. 266 of 1994, decided on 12th March, 2004. DATE of hearing: 15th January, 2004
MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, J
Akhlaque Ahmed Siddiqui for Applicants. Muhammad Usman Qureshi for
Respondent.
R.A. No. 266 of 1994, decided on 12th March, 2004. DATE of hearing: 15th January, 2004
MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, J
Akhlaque Ahmed Siddiqui for Applicants. Muhammad Usman Qureshi for
Respondent.
DIRECTOR, TELEGRAPH STORES AND WORKSHOP and another--Applicants
VS
SAIFUDDIN
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 2---Money suit---Limitation---Delay, condonation of---Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction earlier filed by plaintiff on same cause of action ultimately was dismissed by Supreme Court holding that suit was not maintainable as proper remedy in such a matter would be a suit for money decree---Earlier suit filed by plaintiff though was based on same cause of action, but he could not get desired result for improper frame and character of said suit---Plaintiff, in circumstances was entitled to benefit of S. 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 specially when he was not alleged to have not pursued the cause vigilantly. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revision---Limitation---Filing of revision application much after expiry of 90 days as provided in S. 115, C.P.C. was not disputed and delay in filing revision application had not been explained as required by law---Revision application, was barred by limitation, in circumstances. JUDGMENT The facts leading to this order are that respondent Messrs Mehran Trading Corporation (hereinafter called as "The Corporation") being a registered contractor with T & T Stores and Workshop Department of Government of Pakistan was supplying goods against orders: During 1983, the Director T & T Stores & Workshop, Karachi (hereinafter called as "The Director"), invited quotations for supply of 1000 paper rolls. The quotation of The Corporation being the lowest was accepted vide schedule of acceptance dated 6-11-1983 and orders issued for supply. The total quantity of paper rolls in the contract was provided to The Director, who made full payment for the goods in December 1983. The security deposited by The Corporation/supplier was also returned to them. 2. Afterwards somewhere in April, 1984, the payment for the bills submitted by The Corporation to the Director, for supply of some other goods under another contract was withheld on the ground that the paper rolls provided by them under the earlier contract of 1983 were substandard. 3. As the matter could not be sorted out. The Corporation/Contractor filed a suit bearing No. 1405 of 1985 in the Court 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