Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 2568 2007 SLD 2568 2007 CLC 1133
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.2327 of 2006, heard on 2-04-2007
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

ABDUL WAHEED SHEIKH

VS

Messrs PETAL ENGINEERING (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Chief Executive and another

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.2 & O.VI, R.11---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.77---Suit for recovery---Leave to prove service of notice through secondary evidence was refused---Application for review dismissed---Validity---Provisions of O.VI, R.11, C.P.C. provided that there was no need to plead the notice in question as it was not a kind of notice which was a condition precedent under any statute for filing the suit---Trial Court ignored the very first exception provided to the general rule laid down in Art.77 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 as to when the document to be proved itself is a notice---Impugned orders suffering from jurisdictional defects fell within the mischief of S.115, C.P.C.---Civil revision accordingly was allowed. Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad for Petitioner. Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 2007. JUDGMENT MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---For purposes of this judgment, reference to the pleaded facts would not be necessary. Suffice it to say that a suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of Rs.1,07,20,000 against the respondents is pending before the learned trial Court. On 14-3-2006 an application was filed for seeking leave of Court to prove a notice, dated 13-3-1999 and a receipt of the courier service through whom the notice was sent. It was stated in the application that in the course of evidence, the respondents have denied the receipt of the notice. A reply was filed by the respondents stating that the notice had not been mentioned in the plaint and it was neither appended with the plaint or relied upon. The learned trial Court vide order, dated 29-5-2006 dismissed the said application. An application filed for review of the said order was dismissed on 15-11-2006. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vesting in it on a wrong assumption of the legal and factual position. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order. 3. I have gone through the copies of the relevant records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for 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