Case Details

Citation(s)
1969 SLG 191 1969 SLD 191 1969 PLD 1
High Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1968, decision dated: 19th November 1968
MUHAMMAD SHARIF, ACTG. C.J. AND YAR MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Kh. Amirud Din, Addl. Govt. Advocate for Appellant.

GOVERNMENT OF AZAD J & K

VS

SAFDAR HUSSAIN SHAH

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 11-Res judicata---­Principles of - Do not apply to departmental proceedings Secretary-General of Azad Kashmir Government designated as Special Judge and delegated with Government's powers to hear departmental appeals-Not a Court-Proceedings before Secretary-General, held, do not constitute res judicata. Two of the most important ingredients of the law of res judicata are that there should have been a previous suit and which was decided by a Court. The Government delegated its powers of hearing appeals to the Secretary-General and he heard the departmental appeals which had been referred to him and for deciding which he had been designated as a Special Judge. The fact that he was hearing departmental appeals does not convert him into a Court and there can be no res judicata in case of departmental proceedings. Administrative officers are not 'Courts' within the meaning of section 11, C. P. C., though they have been invested by the Legislature with certain powers to make inquiry and though they are bound to conduct such inquiries in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The proceedings taken before the Secretary General who was designated as a Special Judge do not constitute res judicata. Uday Chand v. Bholanath A I R 1949 Cal. 609 and Akbar Adil v. Republic of Pakistan P L D 1962 Kar. 362 rel. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)----- Art. 120-Expression "when right to sue accrues"-Interpretation-Depends upon facts of particular case and relief sought for-Plaintiff's departmental appeal accepted by appellate tribunal but no action taken on his repeated representations for implementing order Plaintiff ultimately serving notice under S. 80, C. P. C.­ Government turning down notice and electing to contest suit of plaintiff-Right to sue, in circumstances, held, accrued to plaintiff on date of turning down his legal notice and not on date of order of appellate tribunal. The interpretation to be put upon the expression "when the right to sue accrues" in Article 120, Limitation Act to a large extent depends upon the particular facts of the case and to the relief sought. The plaintiff made repeated applications or…
🔒
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