Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 1319 of 1983, decided on 5th November, 1984.
(On appeal from the Judgment and Order, dated 27‑9‑1983 passed by the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 171‑D/82/BWP).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 Suit for damages‑‑Decreed‑‑Plea of limitation not having been raised by petitioner either in written statement or at any stage of proceedings, disallowed to be raised in revisional jurisdiction of the High Court‑‑When question of limitation was not raised to non‑suit respondent, it was, held, too late to raise this plea in revision and High Court was justified in refusing to consider such plea‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
M. Asad Ullah Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th November, 1984.
‑‑In this petition leave is sought on the ground that the High Court erroneously refused to allow the petitioners to raise the question of limitation which was the only point urged at the hearing. The High Court held that as this point was not raised either in the written statement or at any stage of the proceedings, therefore, it was too late in the day to press it.
As will appear from the record, the petitioners had filed a suit for possession alleging that the respondent was not the real son of Mauls Bakhsh and that they were the heirs who inherited his property. The trial Court held that the respondent was the real son of Maula Bakhsh, and that the petitioners had brought a false suit against him in order to defame and deprive him of his legal rights. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit and awarded special costs of Rs.1,000 to the respondent. In the suit, subsequently filed for damages, the petitioners did not lead any evidence and the trial Court held that it was a clear‑cut case of defamation, and, accordingly, awarded damages of Rs.25,000. The appeal failed and in the revision the petitioners did not question the conclusion on merits.
On this view of the matter, when the question of limitation was not raised to non‑suit the respondent, it is too late in the day to raise this plea and the High Court was justified in refusing to consider it on the ground stated.
Accordingly, we find no substance in this petition and dismiss it.
M. I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer