Limitation Act

2011 C L C 1473

Before Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J

MISAL KHAN----Petitioner

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE MEMBER, KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE

and 2 others----Respondents

Civil Revision No.1371 of 2007, decided on 25th April, 2011.

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---

----Ss. S & 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, Rr.2 & 10---Suit for recovery of amount---Return of plaint---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Suit was returned by the civil court for want of jurisdiction; plaintiff filed the same in the court of Judge Banking Court, which was again returned on the question of jurisdiction holding that Banking Court had no jurisdiction, being a civil matter---Plaintiff again in compliance of order of Banking Court filed suit in civil court, which was rejected by the court declaring same to be time ­barred---Validity---Plaintiff while acting in good faith, complied with the decision of the courts/civil and Banking Court---Decision of the courts regarding return of plaint, consumed sufficient time---Delay, in the case, in no way could be attributed to the plaintiff, who in peculiar circumstances of the case, was entitled for condonation of delay under S.14 of Limitation Act, 1908---Legal rights of the plaintiff, who remained the rolling stone since May, 2003, could not be refused on the question of limitation---Plaintiff who had been knocked down on mere technicalities, had acted in good faith and pursued his case with due diligence---Plaintiff could not be refused the benefit of S.14 of Limitation Act, 1908 as object of said section was to protect a litigant against bar of limitation who was pursuing his case bonafidely and in good faith, but was unable to get his case decided on merits on account of defect in jurisdiction of court---Judgments/orders of the courts below were set aside and case was remanded to the court of Senior Civil Judge, with the direction to decide the same on merits, in accordance with law. 

Miss Shah Begum v. Ashraf Ali Naz PLD 1993 Kar. 151; Mst. Hawabai and 6 others v. Abdus Shakoor and 8 others PLD 1981 Kar. 277; Messrs Pakistan Agro Forestry Corporation Ltd. v. T.C. PAF Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. and others PLD 2003 Kar. 284; Tanveer Jamshed and another v. Raja Ghulam Haider 1986 CLC 456; Riaz-ur-Rehman Khan v. Lufthansa German Airlines, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi PLD 2002 Kar. 434; Bahadar Alam and others v. Abdul Razzak and others 2001 YLR 331; Salawal Khan v. Wali Muhammad and others 2002 SCMR 134 and Mst. Anwar Bibi and others v. Abdul Hameed 2002 SCMR 144 ref.

Mst. Qudsia Begum through L.Rs. v. Hazoor Ahmad Khan and another 1989 MLD 1073; Mst. Khalida Begum and 2 others v. Mst. Yasmeen and 4 others 2000 CLC 1290; Miss Shah Begum v. Ashraf Ali Naz PLD 1993 Kar. 151; Muhammad Nawaz Khan and another v. Mst. Farrah Naz PLD 1999 Lah. 238; Sardaraz Khan and 36 others v. Amirullah Khan and 34 others PLD 1995 Pesh. 86 and Mst. Hawabai and 6 other v. Abdus Shakoor and 8 others PLD 1981 Kar. 277 distinguished.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. VII, R.10---Return of plaint---Filing of fresh plaint---If after return of plaint the plaintiff had a sufficient time prescribed under the law of limitation, then there was no need to annex the returned plaint; as the same was not the requirement of law---Filing of fresh plaint and non filing of previous plaint, at the most could be held as a technicality, which could not be allowed to hinder and get in the way of dispensation of justice. 

Mst. Hawabai and 6 others v. Abdus Shakoor and 8 others PLD 1981 Kar. 277 rel.

(c) Administration of justice---

----Act of court---Right of litigant could not be left to suffer because of technicalities and act of court---Act of court would prejudice no man.  

Sajawal Khan v. Wali Muhammad and others 2002 SCMR 134 ref.

Atiqur Rehman for Petitioner.

Zahid Iqbal for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.

Date of hearing: 25th April, 2011