1970 PLP 77 (SCMR)
LAHORE-Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID BUTT AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1970 PLP 77 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LAHORE-Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID BUTT AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 77 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 77 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 77 (SCMR) (LAHORE-Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID BUTT AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Raja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Attorney for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8th July 1969.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 20th March 1969, in Civil Revision No. 657 of 1968). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIII-Application to sue in forma. Pauperis Claim prima facie appearing barred by limitation but question of limitation involved, a complicated one Application, in such circumstance, cannot be rejected.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan in a revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, refusing to interfere with an order of the trial Court, in a pauper application holding that the cause of action sought to be enforced in the plaint filed by the respondent was not barred by limitation. The respondent who was a worker under the petitioner, claimed damages for injuries sustained by him in the course of his employment in the Caustic Soda Solidification Plant of the petitioner. Being a poor worker he sought permission of the Court to sue in forma pauperis but the petitioner raised an objection to the effect that the permission should not be granted, because, the claim itself had become barred by limitation. The trial Court took the view that the cause of action was not barred. Against this a revision was filed in the High Court. The High Court, after hearing Mr. Ghias Muhammad as amicus curiae came to the conclusion that the claim of the respondent was not barred as it was governed by Article 36 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act. In any event, the High Court took the view that it was an established law that the application to sue in forma pauperis was not to be rejected if the question of limitation was a complicated one. In the present case there could be no manner of doubt that the question of limitation was a complicated one. While the petitioner alleges that the case is covered by Article 22, the High Court has held that Article 36 applies and in any event, the question may arise as to whether the provisions of section 18 of the Limitation Act would be attracted or not. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing in support of this petition, we have come to the conclusion that at this stage no serious question of law arises, for, the learned Judge of the High Court was right in holding that an application to sue in forma pauperis should not be rejected if the question of limitation is not free from doubt. This view appears to be unexceptionable. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.