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 Miscellaneous Application No.5451 of 1986 in Suit No.577 of 1984, decided on 12th October, 1986.
---O. VII , R. 11--Limitation Act . (IX of 1908), Art. 56--Rejection of plaint--Suit for recovery of contract money for the work done by plaintiff--No time fixed for payment--Suit filed after expiry of period prescribed under Art. 56 of Limitation Act, 1908 barred by time--plaint rejected.
Mansoor-ul-Arfin for Defendant.
This is an application filed by the defendant under Order VII, Rule 11 and section 151, C.P.C. inter alia, praying for rejection of the plaint, as according to him, the suit is barred by limitation.
2. Briefly, the facts as stated in the plaint are, that the plaintiff was given a contract by the defendant for levelling and grading of about 8,000 sq. metres of land at pump house No.l, Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi. The defendant had verbally agreed with the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000 to the latter for completion of the work. It has been averred by the plaintiff that he was initially paid Rs.65,000 in cash and another sum of Rs.6.0,000 vide Cheque, dated 2-6-1981 towards part payment but thereafter, the balance remaining due was not paid to the plaintiff and as such the defendant still owed a sum of Rs.1,55,000 to him. According to the allegations made in para. 7 of the plaint, the work had been completed by the plaintiff in May 1981.
3. Before filing of the written-statement, the defendant filed an application for supplying better particulars by the plaintiff to the defendant which was allowed and thereafter, further particulars were .supplied by the plaintiff by an additional statement filed by him. In para. 2 of this statement, it was averred by the plaintiff that he had to receive Rs.2,50,000 from the defendant on or before 2-6-1981. On the basis of the statements made by the plaintiff in the plaint and in the statement of further particulars the defendant has now filed the instant application.
4. I have heard Mr. Mansoor-ur-Arfin, learned counsel for the defendant only as both the plaintiff and Mr. M.A. Lakhani, his counsel remained absent. It is also pertinent to point out that no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the defendant.
5. The contention of Mr. Mansoor-ul-Arfin has been that the plaint is time-barred, since for the purpose of limitation, the case is to be governed by Article 56 of the Limitation Act which provides for a period of three years for filing a suit such as the present one. This period, according to Article 56, is to be reckoned from the time when work is complete, if no time has been fixed for payment. According to the averments made in the plaint, the work was completed by the plaintiff in May 1981, therefore, the period of limitation to file a suit had started running from 1-6-1981. Even if it is assumed on the basis of the averments made in para. 2 of the further statement supplied by the plaintiff that payment of Rs.2,50,000 was to be made by the defendant on or before 2-6-1981, the period of limitation, according to the Article 56 of the Limitation Act would have begun from such date i.e. 2-6-1981. Under the circumstances, this case, which was filed on 2-9-1984, is time-barred since the same was filed after expiry of the period of limitation provided therefor.
In view of this factual position, I agree with Mr. Mansoor-ul-Arfin that the suit is barred by limitation and allow this application by directing rejection of the plaint as prayed.
H.B.T./S-1.0/K Plaint rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer