1981 PLP 1009 (CLC)
N. A, SHAH RIYAR‑Appellant Versus MESSRS CONFORCE LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER‑Respondent
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1009 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munawwar Elahee Rana and Muhammad Hasan Sindher, JJ |
| Parties | N. A, SHAH RIYAR‑Appellant Versus MESSRS CONFORCE LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1009 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1009 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munawwar Elahee Rana and Muhammad Hasan Sindher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1009 (CLC) (N. A, SHAH RIYAR‑Appellant Versus MESSRS CONFORCE LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Masood for Appellant.
- Muhammad Abdul Ghani Chouhan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 28th September, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ O. VII, r. 11 read with O. XVII, r. 2 & O. XX. r. 1‑Rejection of plaint‑Dismissal of suit‑Court finding plaint not disclosing cause of action and holding suit barred by provisions of Workmen's Com pensation Act (VIII of 1923) on strength of an order filed by defend‑ant‑Proper course for Court, held, to resort to provisions of O. VII, r. 11 and to reject plaint and not to dismiss suit‑Suit though ap parently dismissed, yet such order, held further, virtually amounted to rejection of plaint.‑[Paint]. ‑‑ O. VII, r. 11‑Rejection of plaint‑Trial Court, held to apply its mind only to facts given in plaint and not to any matter supplied by defendant.‑(Plaint]. ‑‑. O. VIII r. 11 read with O. VI, r. 4‑Rejection of plaint‑Plaint allegedly raising vague allegations of mala fides ‑ Evidence on point not having been allowed to be produced such allegation could not be said to afford no cause of action to plaintiff‑Proper course for Court in circumstances, held further, to order removal of vagueness and not reject plaint or dismiss suit.‑[Plaint‑Cause of action]. ‑‑ O. VIII, r. 2‑Question of limitation‑‑Decision on question of limitation depending upon facts to be placed on record, taking up such question not possible unless specifically raised in pleadings and issue framed ‑ Discussion of such question without such formality and giving of finding thereon, held, not within jurisdiction of Court‑Expression of view on limitation in such case, further held, a premature attempt not to be viewed with favour.‑[Limitations].
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
‑‑ O. VII, r. 11‑Rejection of plaint‑Trial Court, held to apply its mind only to facts given in plaint and not to any matter supplied by defendant.‑(Plaint]. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑. O. VIII r. 11 read with O. VI, r. 4‑Rejection of plaint‑Plaint allegedly raising vague allegations of mala fides ‑ Evidence on point not having been allowed to be produced such allegation could not be said to afford no cause of action to plaintiff‑Proper course for Court in circumstances, held further, to order removal of vagueness and not reject plaint or dismiss suit.‑[Plaint‑Cause of action]. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
‑‑ O. VIII, r. 2‑Question of limitation‑‑Decision on question of limitation depending upon facts to be placed on record, taking up such question not possible unless specifically raised in pleadings and issue framed ‑ Discussion of such question without such formality and giving of finding thereon, held, not within jurisdiction of Court‑Expression of view on limitation in such case, further held, a premature attempt not to be viewed with favour.‑[Limitations]. Tariq Masood for Appellant. Muhammad Abdul Ghani Chouhan for Respondents. Date of hearing : 28th September, 1980.