1994 PLP 1556 (MLD)
PAKISTAN RAILWAY — Petitioner Versus KOHINOOR OIL MILLS — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1556 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PAKISTAN RAILWAY — Petitioner Versus KOHINOOR OIL MILLS — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1556 (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 1994 PLP 1556 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1556 (MLD) (PAKISTAN RAILWAY — Petitioner Versus KOHINOOR OIL MILLS — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Ali Shah for Petitioner.
- M. Bilal Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O.VI, R.17
Railways Act (IX of 1890), S.77
Amendment of written statement
Plea sought to be added by defendant in his written statement by way of amendment was that plaintiff having failed to submit hi., claim under relevant section of Railways Act, his suit was not maintainable-. Plaintiff had stated that Specified para of his plaint contained assertion. regarding submission of claim and that assertion stood admitted in written statement filed by defendant and that in evidence plaintiff had already exhibited claim which was preferred with Railway
Plaintiff had further stated that in any case defendant could press into service provisions of relevant section of Railways Act as necessary evidence had already been led in that respect
Defendant having conceded right to advance plea based on relevant section of Railways Act during argument, and petition for amendment of written statement having not been pressed, same was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
This revision petition was directed against the order, dated 22-9-1993 of the learned Civil Judge, whereby the application under Order VI, Rule
17. C.P.C. for amending the written-statement was rejected. One of the pleas which was sought to be added and which has been pressed before me was that the plaintiff had failed to submit his claim under section 77 of the Railway Act, hence the suit was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff states that the plaint in para. 8 contains the assertion as regards the submission of claim and the said assertion stands admitted in para. 8 of the written statement and that in the evidence the plaintiff-respondent has already exhibited the claim which was preferred with the railways. He adds that in any case the petitioner-defendant can press into service the provisions of section 77 of the Railways Act as necessary evidence has already been led in this respect.
2. In view of the above and as the petitioner is being conceded the right to advance pleas based on section 77 of the Railway Act during arguments this petition is not pressed and is disposed of accordingly parties are left to bear their own cost. . H.B.T./P-91/L Order accordingly.