SYED MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH versus SYEDA KALSOOM HASSAN
Arts 57, 58, 59 and 120 suits for the receipt of money received against the receipt signed by the defendant, which will continue from the date of receipt, shall be filed for more than three years. Was barred by the statute of limitations of the trial court in obtaining borrowed money from the claimant for the purchase of a plot, but the defendant did not schedule time for return except to sell the plot as soon as possible. The plaintiff's request to show the purchase and sale of the plot by the plaintiff was not proved by the plaintiff. Did not respond appropriately, initially refusing to pay, but a week before the lawsuit was filed, he clearly refused to pay the defendant did not cross the line. The plaintiffs examined the plaintiff's statement to that effect, adding that no period had been set for the payment of the money, but the defendant had promised to pay the loan defendant after the sale of the plot. Deliberately avoided payment of four years There was no clause in the Limitation Act, 1908, to apply to the present situation, under which Article 120 was filed a case which, on the date of receipt. Was brought within 6 years. The proceedings could not be dealt with in time-limit when the objections were dismissed and the lawsuit was ordered in the circumstances. \ R \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
