Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 142,144,28

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 142,144,28

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXIII,r.2,1(2),(3)

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXIII, Rr. 1 & 2---Withdrawal of suit with permission to file fresh suit---Limitation, computation of---Plaintiff, in a suit filed with permission granted under O.XXIII, R.1 (2) C.P.C., is bound by law of limitation in the same manner as if the first suit had not been instituted---Withdrawal of previous suit with permission to institute fresh suit cannot have the effect of extending period of limitation---Permission saves fresh suit only from bar contained in O.XXIII, R.1 (3) C.P.C. according to which on an unconditional withdrawal a plaintiff is precluded from instituting fresh suit on the same cause of action---Permission does not save fresh suit from bar of limitation. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ---Ss. 8 & 42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.28---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIII, R.1---Filing of fresh suit on same cause of action---Concurrent findings of facts by the courts below---Adverse possession---Plaintiff claimed that suit property had been in illegal possession of defendant since 1-12-1968----Suit filed by plaintiff in year 1979, was withdrawn on 18-10-2000, with permission to file fresh suit on same cause of action---Plaintiff filed fresh suit on 8-5-2002, but it was rejected/dismissed by Trial Court being barred by limitation---Order passed by Trial Court was maintained by Appellate Court---Validity---Suit filed by plaintiff in year, 1979, being within 12 years of defendant's illegal occupation, was within tine---After withdrawal of first suit, the second suit was filed in year, 2002, i.e. after 33 years of defendant's illegal occupation and was, therefore, time-barred---On 31-8-1991, i.e. on the date of enforcement of decision of Supreme Court in case titled Maqbool Ahmed v. Hakoomat-e-Pakistan, reported as 1991 SCMR 2063, which was after more than 22 years of defendant's illegal occupation, plaintiff's alleged right of ownership having already extinguished under the provisions of S.28 of Limitation Act, 1908, was no more in existence and the decision of Supreme Court did not have the effect of reviewing a non-existent right---High Court in exercise of revisional…

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