1988 PLP 1151 (CLC)
MANZOOR AHMED‑‑Appellant Versus Sheikh REHMATULLAH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1151 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMED‑‑Appellant Versus Sheikh REHMATULLAH and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1151 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1151 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1151 (CLC) (MANZOOR AHMED‑‑Appellant Versus Sheikh REHMATULLAH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ahsan Shaikh for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑
0. VI, R. 17‑‑Amendment of plaint‑‑Plaintiff's effort to get limitation time extended by amendment in plaint with regard to accrual of cause of action‑‑Application for amendment of plaint, held, was rightly rejected in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Sheikh REHMATULLAH and others‑‑Respondents High Court Appeal No. 124 of 1986, decided on 4th September, 1986. ‑‑
0. VI, R. 17‑‑Amendment of plaint‑‑Plaintiff's effort to get limitation time extended by amendment in plaint with regard to accrual of cause of action‑‑Application for amendment of plaint, held, was rightly rejected in circumstances. Muhammad Ahsan Shaikh for Appellant. MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.‑‑ This High Court Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this court rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C of the appellant. In the suit filed by the appellant he had mentioned the cause of action having arisen on 20‑7‑1979 when his mother expired and her property had been inherited by the plaintiff alongwith defendants 2 to 12, secondly on 23‑12‑1980 when Makhdoom Ahmed executed forged power of attorney in his favour and lastly or. 5‑11‑1981 when Makhdoom Ahmed executed sale deed in favour of Shaikh Rahmatullah on the basis of forged power of attorney: Nowhere in the plaint it was mentioned that the plaintiff did not know of the sale deed till 1984 when mutation was effected on 2‑10‑1984. By the, application made the appellant wanted to add that the cause of action also arose on 2‑10‑1984 when the land was mutated in the name of respondent No.l in the record of rights and plaintiff came to know of the said transaction of sale. The learned Judge did not grant application on the ground that valuable right had accrued to the respondent inasmuch as that the cause of action which was originally mentioned was in November 1981 while the latter cause of action was of 2‑10‑1984 which was sought to be added and thus there was a clear effort on the part of appellant to get the time extended by about three years. The suit had been filed in 1985. The learned Judge was right in saying that the mutation in the record of rights was merely incidental to the sale deed of 1981 and since the appellant had not mentioned in the original plaint that he had the knowledge of the sale only in 1984 therefore A by mentioning the cause of action only of the sale deed executed in 1981 the appellant had shown that he had the knowledge of transaction of 1981. In these circumstances there was no justification for the amendment application. We are satisfied that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is correct and, therefore, no interference is called for, hence this High Court Appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑368/K Appeal dismissed.