Find a Lawyer

Suit No. 467 of 1982, decided on 29th October, 1984.

Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--

---Ss. 5 & 6--Insanity---Inconsistent statements of plaintiff--Effect- Plaintiff in his first statement stated that he fell ill loosing head due to shock of death of his only son and recovered during last month- Plaintiff in his subsequent statement stated that on sudden death of his only son in accident he became mentally shocked and insane at once and later on after six months plaintiff partially recovered his senses and filed recovery suit--Two statements of plaintiff being inconsistent and contrary to each other without any support of medical evidence--Plaintiff, held, failed to establish his insanity at time, cause of action accrued to him for filing of suit.--[Insanity].

S. Sibghatullah Hamid for Plaintiff.

Nemo for Defendant.

Date of hearing: 29th October, 1984.

This suit is fixed for final disposal today. However, I find that the suit as instituted is not within time. The accident and the death of the deceased took place on 3-3-1981 but the suit has been filed on 7-8-1982. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith suit and in support of his application he made the following statement in, paragraph 3 of the affidavit:-

"3. That the suit should have been filed before 3-3-1982 but due to shock of the death of the son, the plaintiff fell ill loosing head and could recover in the last month of June when the Court was closed due to summer vacation and hence the suit which is filed on the opening day of vacation is within time."

Today when the suit came up for hearing learned counsel submitted an application under section 6 of the Limitation Act supported by another affidavit of today's date. In the first affidavit under section 5 of the Limitation Act the plaintiff's case was that he fell ill loosing head due to shock of the death of his son and recovered in the last month of June when the Court was closed. In the present affidavit filed by the plaintiff it is stated that as soon as the plaintiff came to know of then, accident of his only son the plaintiff became mentally shocked and insane at once. Latter after about six months when he recovered his senses partially he came to know about the death of his son and then filed the suit. The two statements made in the affidavits are not only inconsistent and contrary to each other but apart from this bare statement in these affidavits no medical evidence has been produced in support of assertion made in the affidavit. Mere fact that due to shocks, of the news about death of his son the plaintiff fell ill is not enough to enlarge time under section 6 of the Limitation Act for institution of proceedings in Court.

After having read the application and the two affidavits filed by the plaintiff 1 find that he has failed to establish that he was insane at the time the cause of action accrued to him for filing of the present suit. I accordingly reject the plaint as time-barred.

H . B . T .

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.