1987 PLP 2583(1) (MLD)
SULTAN ALI and another — Appellants Versus MIRZA MOAZZAM BAIG — Respondent .
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2583(1) (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Muhammad Mazhar Ali, JJ |
| Parties | SULTAN ALI and another — Appellants Versus MIRZA MOAZZAM BAIG — Respondent . |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2583(1) (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2583(1) (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Muhammad Mazhar Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2583(1) (MLD) (SULTAN ALI and another — Appellants Versus MIRZA MOAZZAM BAIG — Respondent .). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sadaruddin Qureshi for Appellant.
- S. M. Akhtar Rizvi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O. V II , R.11--Limitation Act (IX of 1908) , S.4--Rejection of plaint- Suit was filed on very first day of re-opening of Court after long summer vacations and amount of court-fee was deposited by plaintiff within limitation period although stamps of court-fee were furnished after expiry of limitation period--Such suit, held, was not time-barred as period of vacation was to be excluded while computing period of limitation and plaintiff had deposited amount of court-fee within limita tion period.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.--This appeal is directed against an order dated 11-1-1987 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.643/84, whereby he dismissed the present appellant's application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C which was filed on two grounds, namely, that the suit was time-barred as it was filed on 5-8-1984 and that the court-fee stamps were supplied after .the expiry of limitation period. The learned Single Judge in his order under appeal has rightly pointed out that the respondent /plaintiff filed the suit on the first day of the reopening of the Court after long Summer Vacation and, therefore, the period of vacation was to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. As regards the payment of court-fee, he has observed that respondent /plaintiff had deposited the amount of the court-fee within the limitation period though had furnished the stamps of the court-fee on 13-8-1984. The learned Single Judge has exercised discretion properly in the matter. Admittedly the respondent/ plaintiff had parted with the amount of court-fee within the limitation period. The appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-99/K Appeal dismissed.