PLD 1959

P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

(MESSRS) TRANS OCEANIC STEAMSHIP, Co. LTD. and another‑Applicants Versus (MESSRS) TAYOOB MOOSA & Co.‑Opponents

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Civil Revision Application No. 183 of 1958, decided on 20th April 1959.
Honorable Judges
Wahiduddln Ahmad, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1959 (W (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members Wahiduddln Ahmad, J
Parties (MESSRS) TRANS OCEANIC STEAMSHIP, Co. LTD. and another‑Applicants Versus (MESSRS) TAYOOB MOOSA & Co.‑Opponents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 (W (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 (W (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Wahiduddln Ahmad, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 (W (PLP) ((MESSRS) TRANS OCEANIC STEAMSHIP, Co. LTD. and another‑Applicants Versus (MESSRS) TAYOOB MOOSA & Co.‑Opponents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Muchandani for Petitioners.
  • Date of hearing : 20th April 1959.

Headnotes / Summary

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. VI, r. 17‑Amendment of pleadings applied for in 1958 in suit filed in 1952‑Inordinate delay and negligenceAmendment refused. Naimuddin for Opponents.

Judgment & Decree

O. VI, r. 17‑Amendment of pleadings applied for in 1958 in suit filed in 1952‑Inordinate delay and negligenceAmendment refused. Muchandani for Petitioners. Naimuddin for Opponents. Date of hearing : 20th April 1959. The learned subordinate Court disallowed the amendment on the ground of inordinate delay and gross negligence. Mr. Mirchandani admits that the suit was filed in 1952 and the amend ment was sought in 1958. According to him the delay was due to the fact that the original Bill of Lading was lying at Chittagong office. The only question for consideration is whether the subordinate Court exercised its discretion properly. I am satisfied that this is a case of gross negligence and inordinate delay. I see no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. Petition dismissed with costs. A.H. Petition dismissed,