| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 1947 2009 SLD 1947 2009 CLD 1471 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.969 of 2000 and C.M. As. Nos.2268 of 2008, 1905 of 2009, decision dated: 15-05-2009.
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J
Nemo for Plaintiff. Shaiq Usmani for Defendant No. 5.
Suit No.969 of 2000 and C.M. As. Nos.2268 of 2008, 1905 of 2009, decision dated: 15-05-2009.
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J
Nemo for Plaintiff. Shaiq Usmani for Defendant No. 5.
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN--Plaintiff
VS
. Messrs Karachi High Court TANK TERMINAL (PVT.) LTD. and 4 others----Defendants
Law:
Section:
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, (XXV of 1997)-------S.7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.II, R.2---Suit for recovery of loan-Cause of action in the previously instituted .suit for which the plaintiff held a decree and the present suit appeared to be the one and the same and the plaintiff could not competently file two separate suits by splitting up his claim and that too without disclosing the fact of having earlier obtained money decree on same cause or advancing any reason for filing separate suit and that also without permission of the court---Explanation to sub-rule (3) of R.2 of O.II, C.P.C. made it clear that successive breach of one obligation would be deemed to give rise to one cause of action and, in the present case, non-payment of the finance facility was one cause of action entitling the plaintiff to various reliefs and since the plaintiff had omitted to sue for one of the reliefs, therefore, was not entitled to sue on the basis of relief so omitted---Suit consequently was dismissed being barred by 0.11, R.2, C.P.C.---Principles. Abdul Hakim and 2 others v. Saadullah Khan and 2 others PLD 1970 SC 63; Muhammad Khalil Khan and others v. Mehboob Ali Mian and others and Abdul Ghafoor v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Karachi 1971 SCMR 602 ref. ORDER SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Through this application defendant No.5 seeks rejection of the plaint on the ground that the claim in the instant suit is not only barred under Order II, rule 2, C.P.C./limitation but also hit by the principles of res judicata. The record reflects that even prior to filing of listed application this Court vide orders dated 12-12-2005 and 19-12-2006 had made certain observations questioning the maintainability of instant suit on similar ground. On 8-4-2009 and 28-4-2009 counsel for the plaintiff sought time to address the Court regarding maintainability of the instant suit and at his request matter was adjourned to 30-4-2009 to be taken up at 8.30 a.m. However, on that date the Court was informed that the counsel for the plaintiff has left the country and would be available somewhere in the middle of August, 2009. The…
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