Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision No. 604 of 1961‑62, decided on 2nd October 1962, District Mardan.
----
----S. 3‑Court has power to dismiss suit filed beyond time even though plea of limitation is not raised by opposite‑party‑Framing of issue not necessary.
This order will dispose of the three Revision Petitions Nos. 604, 605 and 606 of 1961‑62. The facts briefly are that the respondent landlord made an application for ejectment of the petitioner‑tenants from the lands m dispute under section 25 of the N.‑W. F. P. Tenancy Act. A notice was issued to the tenants and their ejectment was ordered. About six months later the tenants filed suits contesting their liability to ejectment and one of the points raised was that the notice was not duly served on them. The trial Court was in doubt regarding the suit being within time and directed the parties to lead evidence on this point. The petitioners went in revision against this order and the ground urged was that a regular issue regarding limitation had not been framed. The revisions nevertheless were dismissed. They have now come up in second revisions.
The only point that has been taken up in the petitions is that 'the procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code has not been followed as a regular issue on the point of limitation was not framed. Under the provisions of section 3 of the Limitation Act it is the duty of the trial Court to determine whether the suit is within time even if a plea of limitation is not raised by the other party as this section definitely lays down that in the event of a suit brought after time the Court of first instance is bound to dismiss it. That being the position it is not necessary to dismiss it. That being the position it is not necessary for the trial Court to frame a regular issue on the point of limitation as issues obviously relate to points in contest between the parties. In my opinion the decision arrived at by the learned Additional Commissioner is correct and the three revision petitions are dismissed in limine.
K. M. A. Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer